Mercedes the dog killed Slugger the cat. The fact is not disputed by Mercedes’ owner. But the law that sentences Mercedes to death based on one incident alone is currently under review.
Because the attack happened in Broward County, Florida, the “dangerous dog” laws that apply (among the strictest in the US) offer zero tolerance for pets that commit a fatal act against a “domestic animal” or a "serious" act of violence against a human.
As he sat on his porch, Slugger was mauled to death. I’m sure it didn’t take Mercedes long to dispatch her prey. And I’m sure she’s not sorry. She was doing her canine thing. A normal dog behavior for a normal dog. Too bad her owner was not doing his normal human thing by making sure Mercedes didn’t have her way with someone else’s property. Too bad Mercedes is a pit bull mix (an she's alluded to as a "pit bull" in most news reports).
Tasteless though it sounds, the issue of property is what’s driving the legal case that's ensued. Yes, “property” was lost. And “property” is what’s scheduled to be taken away by way of legal recompense. An eye for an eye...because we’re only human and that’s what we deem aceptable when it comes to property loss.
You take my X, I’ll take your Y. When cold, hard cash does not suffice, a life for a life seems perfectly OK. That’s how some of these dangerous dog laws work.
Mercedes’ owner is sorry the attack happened. He says she accidentally got out says and claims he would have taken measures to prevent a future escape and address her predatory behavior...had he been given the chance.
Since the attack happened (last November), Mercedes has been sitting in a cage. First at the shelter and now more comfortably at a local veterinary hospital. She would have been euthanized months ago had it not been for the lawsuit her owner filed on her behalf last January.
Mercedes’ lawsuit is one of five currently pending in Broward County (the neighboring county to my north). All dispute the harshness of the law, instituted in May of 2008. Since its inception, 30 dogs have been euthanized after first attacks, mostly after human bites resulted in “serious injury.”
Imagine: Your dog bites a person. It was a firm bite that occurred in your own home and a hospital visit ensued. The person bitten claims the attack was unprovoked. He also claims serious injury when a hand surgeon needs to be called in and he was unable to work for six months. Under the Broward law, any dog that bites a human for no apparent reason resulting in a “serious injury” gets euthanized. One strike and you’re OUT. What constitutes a “serious” injury is not defined by the law.
The law allows for dogs to protect their property in the event of another “domestic” animal’s encroachment. But when a fatal act of violence is committed by any dog against any animal off his property (unless he was attacked first), all bets are off.
The legal argument against such laws have attacked their constitutionality. A municipality cannot take away your peoperty without being granted the right to render it safe, first. For example, they can’t take your car just because you left it in gear and it killed a cat in front of your neighbor's house.
Property rights being what they are in the US, no one should be able to take your dog just because it was doing what dogs normally do when humans don’t properly care for them.
Sure, they can revoke a human’s driving privileges if he’s driven drunk. In some cases they can even impound your vehicle. They can even take your boat if you’re guilty of a BUI. But never after just one offense. It’s deemed unconstitutional based on our basic right to property. A human has to work hard to prove he’s truly irresponsible before property is seized.
That’s also the case with pets who are mistreated, neglected or abused. If no harm comes to anyone else’s property or person by virtue of the situation, an owner has to be egregiously in violation before his animal property can be taken away.
But once harm is done, municipalities like Broward can do so in the most violent of ways: By euthanizing the pet for being a one-time public menace.
Now, if there’s one thing we clamor for here on Dolittler, it’s for pet owners to be made responsible for the acts their pets commit. Don’t ban breeds, we say, address the problem at the level of the irresponsible-owner. So why shouldn’t we support a law that attempts to do so?
I’ll give you five reasons why not:
#1 Because this law ignores the reality of animal behavior. Sure, someone’s “property” was harmed. More importantly, a living, loved animal was killed. But killing a cat does not necessarily a dangerous dog make. Such predatory behavior is normal.
One might even argue that both owners were irresponsible (to different degrees) since outdoor cats are inherently more at risk of predation––something every owner who keeps a cat out of doors understands.
#2 Because one chance is not enough, given the vagaries inherent to keeping pets enclosed and the potentially accidental nature of a one-time event. You need to be given a chance to understand you have a problem with your fencing and a dog that predates on cats to address it. You deserve to be given the opportunity to take responsibility for your pet.
That's true...
#3 ...especially because an animal is NOT like simple property in so many ways (which I don’t deny goes both ways in this case)...
#4 ...especially since a law written like this doesn’t address human behavior. All an irresponsible, uncaring owner has to do is throw his hands up and get another dog. Viewed this way, laws like this undermine our attempts to dispel the belief that pets are disposable...
#5 ...especially when it’s the pet that pays the ultimate price.
Ultimately, what’s wrong with this law––as for the bulk of animal-specific legislation out there––is that it continues to punish the pets, not the people.
.jpg){kind=tracking}
Add Comment107 Comments
Well said, Dr. K!
I really wish that we could change the status of household pets (and even in some cases livestock) such that they are not deemed property, but the living entities that they actually are. Would that prevent things like this from happening? Probably not completely, but it would save more animals. I'm convinced of this.
I would also very much like to see BSL done away with. It's BS.
Jen M. July 23rd, 2009 11:27:46 AM
Excellent post, Dr. Khuly. I second what Jen M said ^
oh holland July 23rd, 2009 11:31:16 AM
No the dog should not be put down to death. as horriable as this was- I still think this does not solve the issue. Pet owners should have to go to classes to be pet owners- so at least they become knowledgable and responsable. I too think pets are not " property " as a thing like a tv set, or couch, or a house...they have breath and souls and need alot more respect as a living life. humans who rape & murder get a better sentence- when they should be put to death for killing a life! a child!...this country needs different leadership & no supreme court. this needs a petition to save the dog and raise awarness to the need for owners to learn how to raise and train their pets.
carol July 23rd, 2009 11:37:24 AM
Amen - best post I've ever seen on this subject.
Al Brittain July 23rd, 2009 12:37:37 PM
Although no one disputes that animals are not "simple" property, it is important that our laws continue to regard them as a TYPE of property simply because the Constitution protects our rights to own "property" but not our rights to be "guardians of sentient beings". I'm no lawyer, but many legal analysts think that it would actually be EASIER for the government to take our pets if they were not considered property. That's a chance that I am not willing to take.
Case in point - the way I understand it - the only way the lawsuits against the Broward Co. dangerous dog law have been able to persist and help Mercedes to survive is that they are regarding Mercedes and the other dogs as "property" and arguing that it is unconstitutional for the county to summarily dispose of them. That is, it is unconstitutional for the county to deprive those owners of their property. You don't have to like the language to appreciate how it can work in a pet owner's favor.
In cases like these, a fine would be more appropriate. Since most animals have very low "replacement value" the fine would have to be set higher than mere replacement cost - something to recognize emotional attachment. And the fine would be due regardless of whether the owner of the attacking dog agreed to surrender it to animal control to be killed, or not. But the owner should ALWAYS have the chance to rectify things and keep the dog.
Barb July 23rd, 2009 01:07:26 PM
"Viewed this way, laws like this undermine our attempts to dispel the belief that pets are disposable..." Agreed, but more importantly, it undermines our attempts to dispel the belief that humans don't need to take responsibility for the actions of those under their control. I'm not trying to get into a controversy here, but, just a quick comparison: A parent's lovely, but immature, 17 yr old, sends a flirty, provocative picture to another 17 year old, and gets caught. The teenager gets tried and labeled a sex offender for life. No attempt to let the parent take responsibility to deal with future behavior of their child.
Yes, every parent should know how to prevent this, but, oops, kids aren't robots to be perfectly programmed. Ruining a kid's life over normal behavior (despite the moral outrage of the fanatically uptight) is ridiculous.
Yes, every pet owner should know how to prevent problems, but pets aren't robots to be perfectly programmed. And although it's debatable, pets aren't supposed to be smarter than teenagers.
KateH July 23rd, 2009 01:19:31 PM
It seems that the Broward ordinance implicitly awards honorary personhood on the biting dog. Only a "person" can be held responsible, found guilty and executed for a crime. For example, if a brick fell off my house and killed someone, I would not expect that the brick would be "annihilated" by crushing it as its punishment. Generally the owner of the offending item (brick, dog etc) is held responsible. In this case, if the dog is made to pay the "ultimate peanalty," are its owners thus absolved of responsibility for medical costs, pain, lost work etc.? Perhaps it would be fair to offer the choice to the injured party. Either get monetary damages or see the dog killed; thus avoiding "double jeopardy."
Dr. Steve Dubin July 23rd, 2009 01:21:01 PM
Great point KateH. I added in a teeny sentence twist to the post to reflect the issue of granting owners the "opportunity to take responsibility."
Dr. Patty Khuly July 23rd, 2009 01:53:28 PM
In Palm Beach County recently two pit bulls jumped over a fence attacked a Jack Russell in his own yard, followed him through the doggie door and killed him in his house.
THEY can't be euthanized because they've only killed once.
That's not fair. If it's your cat or your kid or your dog, I think you'd feel differently. No it's not fair to the dog but its not fair to the owner of the dead animal either, or the inevitable next one. The penalty should be on the owner for sure...however, if it were my dog or cat that was killed, I'd be voting for death.
Sheyna July 23rd, 2009 01:55:58 PM
What do they mean by "unprovoked"? I'm reminded of a lecture by Dr. Ian Dunbar about dog bites. He lists four common provocation for dog bites:
Each one by itself might not provoke a dog to bite, but a combo of them can. I'm betting the law doesn't count them or even think of them.
So here we are- instead of teaching the public and dog owners what can provoke a dog to bite, and working on preventing them (de-sentinzing dogs to these provocations since they are puppies), we assume that without teaching them the dogs will know what we call provocation, and if they guess wrong and go by their natural behavior, they get a death sentence.
Ain't that a good way to prevent dog bites :-/
Xslf July 23rd, 2009 02:08:33 PM
Wait a second, a dog doing a normal dog thing gets the death sentence, but that creepy cat mauler you mentioned awhile back gets a hand slap for sadistically destroying nineteen times the amount of "property"? I LOVE common sense! Punish the owner, not the dog...
LaShelle July 23rd, 2009 02:08:39 PM
Sheyna: I don't agree that it's "inevitable." Growing up, one of our dogs attacked another, nearly killing her. We paid for all the veterinary care and raised our fencing, built double doors to prevent accidental escape, posted dangerous dog signs for meter readers and others who might enter the yard and leave gates open and applied concrete to the base of the fencing all the way around the property. Nothing like that ever happened again. I'll reiterate: owners need to be granted the opportunity to take responsibility for their pets. Pets are not to be destroyed if they can be prevented from exhibiting these natural behaviors.
If the Palm Beach scenario happened to me, I would want the owner to required to build an impermeable fence and pay sizable damages for having failed to properly contain his dogs. I would probably petition for the dogs to be contained on the other side of the yard or some such measure. I would not automatically want the dogs euthanized, though.
If it had happened to a child, however, all bets would be off. That kind of predatory behavior against humans is aberrant and I agree that dogs who attack humans in this way do not deserve a second chance. Period.
And a simple question: If these two dogs had not been pit bulls but otherwise adorable Labs, would you feel differently? Some people would. They might even start to wonder what the Jack had done to provoke the attack.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 23rd, 2009 02:15:53 PM
I disagree 100% with much of your logic.
"#1 Because this law ignores the reality of animal behavior. Sure, someone’s “property” was harmed. More importantly, a living, loved animal was killed. But killing a cat does not necessarily a dangerous dog make. Such predatory behavior is normal. "
I do not believe it is "normal" for pet dogs to attack and kill other pets.
"#2 Because one chance is not enough, given the vagaries inherent to keeping pets enclosed and the potentially accidental nature of a one-time event. You need to be given a chance to understand you have a problem with your fencing and a dog that predates on cats to address it. You deserve to be given the opportunity to take responsibility for your pet."
These types of animals can just as easily attack and kill a small child. If I were to use your logic this would give the dangerous animal a second chance and it could attack or even kill a child.
"As he sat on his porch, Slugger was mauled to death. I’m sure it didn’t take Mercedes long to dispatch her prey. And I’m sure she’s not sorry. She was doing her canine thing. A normal dog behavior for a normal dog."
The cat should have been safe on it's own porch. It was not as if it was in the dog's territory. If one of your beloved pets was on your property and was mauled to death you might feel differently. I find it hard to believe that if your dog had been killed by another dog that you would just say well that is just normal dog behavior for a normal dog.
" Ultimately, what’s wrong with this law––as for the bulk of animal-specific legislation out there––is that it continues to punish the pets, not the people."
The people and the pets should both be punished. I do not want known cat killer dogs in my neighborhood where there are many small children and a large park. I love animals but am all for laws that restrict dangerous dogs. In my city there have been some terrible attacks on people by dogs that had the dangerous designation. The owners of these dogs did not follow the city guidelines and the dogs ended up attacking people that were visiting their house. There are not the resources to moniter these owners to make sure they are following the regulations. Are these owners the types that are going to follow the letter of the law??? I say probably not.
confused July 23rd, 2009 02:36:19 PM
Not inevitable you're right...I just take a dim view of humanity I guess. I'm really not hopeful of a good outcome. For instance and this is a stretch and an exxxxtreme example but in the Diane Whipple case years ago, those dogs had attacked other dogs and the question was, why wasn't something done before it progressed?
I do get a little nervous when I see pits, yes I'm prejudiced mainly because I have a reactive little dog who may or may not try to attach himself to the face of a big dog that jumps on him. However....maybe ironically the pit bulls we encounter have been very easy going, dogs that have gone after him after being snarked at? Labs.
Sheyna July 23rd, 2009 02:40:33 PM
Just a point to "confused." Chasing prey IS normal for many dogs. Some will see a cat as prey. And attacking a small animal does not mean the dog will then turn on a child. Dog/cat/small animal aggression does not equal human aggression. Many dogs who are seriously dog aggressive are the most loving creature with any human being who comes his way.
Crysania July 23rd, 2009 02:46:27 PM
It could be true that dogs that will attack and kill other animals can be loving to humans. I still do not see how that makes it acceptable for these dogs to attack and kill other pets. If your dog was attacked and mauled by another animal would you be willing to say that is just normal behavior and accept the outcome????? If you were sitting on your porch and a neighbors dog came into your yard and your dog ran to get away and the dog chased and killed your dog because it was chasing "prey" would that be acceptable to you. Please look at this issue from the side of the animal that was mauled and killed.
confused July 23rd, 2009 03:27:55 PM
This is what happens when the authorities don't keep track of dangerous dogs.
http://www.startribune.com/local/19227414.html?location_refer=Most%20Viewed:Homepage
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/11/paula-ybarra-dog-attack-victim-wins.html
http://www.youtube.com/user/zupf
Reporter July 23rd, 2009 03:34:24 PM
Confused, my 2 cents.
Prey drive is normal behavior in many dogs and very, very common in cats for that matter - just ask the mice at my house.
Nobody is saying it is acceptable for a dog to kill a cat, but rather that there are ways to manage such dogs and make sure it doesn't happen again. I've been down this road with a dog of mine, only difference was the cat was in my yard. My dog was not executed and has never done it again.
What would be the rationale for executing such a dog? An eye for an eye? A deterrent to other dogs who will think twice about chasing cats? Or is it to punish the owners by killing their dog?
If it is to protect people and animals in the neighborhood, then a leash and careful management will do the job, and the dog and his owner deserve that chance. If it is some assumption that a dog who will go after a cat would do the same thing to a child, that is simply untrue. The reverse might be true - a dog so aggressive that he will attack a child might also go after a cat - but prey drive does not equal dangerous to humans.
Anne July 23rd, 2009 03:44:09 PM
@ confused: You do realize that there are some dogs (in this country and others) are are used to LEGALLY HUNT and tree big cats (eg. bobcat and lynx). I assure you that they would kill a domestic cat if the opportunity presented itself!
I refuse to believe that these dogs are a danger to people and humans. As Crysania stated above: the pursuit and killing of prey (rapidly retreating furry object) DOES NOT equal human/child aggression.
I do agree with Dr. K that this kind of predatory behavior against humans is aberrant and I agree that dogs who attack humans in this way do not deserve a second chance.
It is not Slugger's fault that he is a cat.
The three faults here are (1) The failure of Mercedes' owner to keep her contained; (2) the terrible policy of zero tolerance for pets that commit a fatal act against a "domestic animal"; (3) The failure of Slugger's owners to keep him indoors and safe
Granted, Slugger was on HIS porch...but what if he wasn't? What if Mercedes WAS leashed and she still grabbed Slugger who himself hunting in a ditch?
Does it EVER occur to anyone else how irresponsible people are permitted to be about cats?
As the owner of three confirmed cat-killers, this is a constant worry for me since in our current State of residence, they would be labeled as 'dangerous dogs' for this crime. These same dogs all have CGC titles and two are certified with a local organization to visit human patients in hospitals/nursing homes. They are hardly dangerous...unless you are a cat, or a squirrel, or rabbit, or groundhog, or raccoon, or oppossum, or chipmunk, or wild boar... They aren't pitbulls.
Sarah B. July 23rd, 2009 03:53:38 PM
I have read through all of the posts and it is quite interesting that many of you that are so forgiving of the dogs seem to have dogs that have attacked or even killed other pets. Sarah B. I wonder how it could be that three of your dogs are confirmed cat killers? I am a bit shocked that local organizations that deal with vulnerable people allow confiremed cat killers to visit patients. Have you told these organizations your dogs are confirmed cat killers?
I have had dogs my entire life and never had problems with them killing the neighborhood cats. My family hunts and has trained hunting dogs and these dogs have NEVER attacked other pets. My brother has been involved in some pretty serious dog training and his dogs are very intimidating and have never attacked another animal.
Sarah B says- "Does it EVER occur to anyone else how irresponsible people are permitted to be about cats? "
this quote speaks loads to the flavor of this discussion. I care for all companion animals and see that they all have equal value.
confused July 23rd, 2009 04:47:55 PM
My dogs haven't killed anything besides mice and lizards (in my own yard), but I am firmly in the "don't kill the dog for the owner's one mistake" camp.
I am frequently horrified by how lax people are with pets they supposedly care about--not just letting cats wander, but also dogs. Letting an animal roam unleashed and uncontained is asking to have that animal die in some way, and it's absolutely the owner's fault.
When a dog gets out by accident, and kills a cat that is NOT out by accident, I do think the owner who knowingly let their pet out is partly at fault. No matter what kind of pet you have, putting it out of your house without a leash or a fence means there's something out there that can kill it: other animals, cars, even weather.
Confused, if you care for all companion animals, would you like to see one of yours taken from you for acting on a new behavior, one you've never seen, and which you've never had a chance to change/protect against? Suppose you had a pet who got loose and dug up someone else's garden. Would it be right for them to insist your oet was a menace? Or would you deserve a chance to make sure it never happened again?
I don't know what kind of dogs you've had, but every dog I've known is very, very interested in cats...and if the cat runs, the dog will chase. If a dog happens to catch a cat, the dog may even kill the cat by accident simply trying to catch it. How can you possibly insist that a dog who kills a cat MUST be dangerous?
Galadriel July 23rd, 2009 05:06:05 PM
"I care for all companion animals and see that they all have equal value."
Since you opened the can of worms, confused, I'll grab one:
Do companion animals have a greater value than other animals? If so, is it because they're loved and owned? Would you feel the same way about a feral cat or a raccoon? How about for a bird or a lizard? According to this law, even a feral cat is likely to be classified as a "domestic animal." And if all animals are truly on the same plane, then how can anyone justify leaving cats out of doors?
Example: The free-roaming (mostly owned) cats that traverse my yard constantly leave reminders of how well fed they are by leaving dead birds and lizards all over the place. I don't blame the cats. Aren't they doing normal cat behaviors?
Even if you don't agree that other animals are on the same level, consider the house cat that kills your favorite cockatiel, a beloved hamster or scoops out a fish from the tank. Aren't they doing their normal thing? Then why the double-standard for dogs?
Dogs that kill cats don't "graduate" to hurting people. Independent of other displays of aggression, it's not considered a risk factor for aggression against humans. Caveat: this is true except when we're talking about dogs with overdeveloped predatory drives in the presence of very young infants (less than 6 months), whom no one in their right mind would leave unsupervised with ANY dog anyway.
confused: I want to be sure you understand that we are not ganging up on you for the sake of doing so. This is a lively discussion that raises many interesting points and it's become much more interesting for your courage in speaking out for your less popular opinion (though I'm pretty sure your position is more popular out in the "real" world).
Dr. Patty Khuly July 23rd, 2009 05:58:15 PM
I'm with confused and Sheyna. And the tone of some of the posts I've read borders on cat-hate. For the first time reading comments to this blog, I am very disturbed. IT WAS NOT THE CATS FAULT. The cat was not "roaming" - it was on it's front porch. There could even have been a fence around the front yard - we don't know. What I hear in so many of the comments is sympathy for the dog but none for the poor cat or the cat's owner. And I find that lack of sympathy disturbing and offensive. Yes, I'm a cat person, though I like dogs. If that makes me unwelcome here...so be it. That's certainly the impression I'm getting from the comments so far.
I let several of my cats out in my fenced back yard. If a dog jumped the fence - easy to do - and killed my cat, yes indeed that animal is DANGEROUS. Will the dog hurt humans - I don't know. Should the dog be euthanized - it depends. I don't agree with any "one size fits all" laws, BUT I think the presumption should be that the dog will hurt other animals and/or people UNLESS the owner can show extenuating circumstances and takes actions to prevent a reoccurance. If it was my cat, would I want the dog euthanized...probably. Though that desire would be out of grief and anger more than anything. And I would be angry at the dog's OWNER who let the dog run loose. One death does not compensate for another. But if the dog is likely to kill again, due to it's nature or an irresponsible owner, euthanasia is an option I would support.
Galadriel - a pet who digs up a garden isn't killing another beloved pet. So your comment falls flat. And I'm sad you feel that an owner letting a cat out IN THEIR OWN YARD is partly at fault in their pet's death. I just hope we are never neighbors.
The upshot of what I'm hearing is that dogs will chase and kill cats and there is nothing a cat owner can do but keep the cats inside their own house (not just inside their yard). My response is - bull! Dogs CAN be taught not to chase small animals. Plenty of dogs live with and get along with cats and other small animals.
Where is the sympathy for ALL the innocents in this awful scenario?
Kalynnda Rivermoon July 23rd, 2009 06:01:30 PM
Galadriel says "When a dog gets out by accident, and kills a cat that is NOT out by accident, I do think the owner who knowingly let their pet out is partly at fault. No matter what kind of pet you have, putting it out of your house without a leash or a fence means there's something out there that can kill it: other animals, cars, even weather."
This discussion is getting more interesting each time someone posts how it is the victims fault for being around dogs just acting like dogs. I do not see the connection between weather and dogs that pursue and kill companion animals when the victims are in their own homes or their own yard.
Galadreil says "I don't know what kind of dogs you've had, but every dog I've known is very, very interested in cats...and if the cat runs, the dog will chase" If a dog happens to catch a cat, the dog may even kill the cat by accident simply trying to catch it. .
I guess for all of the people on this planet that have both dogs and cats living in harmony in their homes it must be a miracle. We have had german shephards, black labs, poodles and an assortment of small muts living in harmony with a variety of small companion animals. In addition to cats we have had rabbits, hamsters and rats and none were ever attacked by the dogs.
Galadreil says "How can you possibly insist that a dog who kills a cat MUST be dangerous?"
In my opinion a dog that kills other companion animals is dangerous to other animals and In my opinion those dogs are not safe. I work with small children on a daily basis and would not want them around dogs that are confirmed companion animal killers. Small children can move erraticaly like prey and often will run from dogs.
confused July 23rd, 2009 06:05:32 PM
Is it only dogs that are covered by Broward County's dangerous-animals law? Admittedly most other companion animals are unlikely to inflict serious damage on anything as large as a cat or a human.
The law errs in not considering what measures would actually lead to a decrease in further dog bites/attacks. I'm quite sure that no dog ever refrained from biting because another dog got the death penalty.
I do have sympathy for the cat owner. We are cat people here - we have two and recently lost a seventeen-year-old cat - and, yes, we would be crushed if one of them was killed by a dog. We'd also be crushed if our guinea pig was killed by one of the cats, but we wouldn't blame the cat. It's their nature to catch and kill small critters. It's the nature of some dogs to do the same. It isn't the dog's fault, in this case, that its prey happened to be someone's beloved pet.
Ledasmom July 23rd, 2009 06:20:05 PM
Dr. Kuhly,
I really do not follow your logic when you try to put me into a corner by comparing companion animals to wild animals.
I do care for the wild animals and how they are treated but when the neighborhood hawk eats a squirrel I do not compare it to the neighbor's dog eating a cat. I can only infer from your tone and that of others on this board that you just do not care for cats.
"Do companion animals have a greater value than other animals? If so, is it because they're loved and owned? Would you feel the same way about a feral cat or a raccoon? How about for a bird or a lizard? According to this law, even a feral cat is likely to be classified as a "domestic animal." And if all animals are truly on the same plane, then how can anyone justify leaving cats out of doors?"
Where I live people do not leave their companion animals out of doors. We keep them in our homes, fenced yards, or walking on a leash.
I do not know all the research on dog bites so it would be helpful for you to post links on where you are getting your information.
I have seen dogs go after leashed dogs and when their owner tries to "save" their dog they get attacked by the offending pooch.
Confused July 23rd, 2009 06:20:20 PM
I don't think anyone is trying to claim that the cat could be remotely at fault.
The dog's owner did something wrong, albeit (he says) by accident. The dog owner should be held responsible, since his property damaged someone else's property. This is the case when any animal gets out and does damage--even owners of livestock, if they are loose and hit by a car, are responsible for the damage to the car and injuries to the driver. When your animal does damage, you're responsible, no matter how the damage was done. So yes, penalize the owner, penalize him hard. Why penalize the dog? It's the owner who screwed up.
The cat's owner, on the other hand, exposed his cat to many dangers, of which a dog is only one. Unless he had a roofed, fenced outside area, his cat was not contained. There are many, many dangers out there for a loose pet. The fact that a loose cat was killed shouldn't surprise the cat's owner, any more than it should surprise the owner of a loose dog if the dog should be killed by other animals, cars, weather, etc.
~ ~ ~
Confused--Certainly dogs CAN be taught not to chase small animals, if there is an opportunity to train and condition them. The fact that cats and dogs CAN live together doesn't mean that most dogs's first impulse wouldn't be to chase a cat. A dog who's been conditioned to live peacefully with cats/other small animals? That's something entirely different. It's bizarre that you'd suggest that dogs who chase cats AREN'T the norm, simply because you've apparently always had dogs who were well-conditioned.
This is particularly the case when you go on to say that all pets in your neighborhood are well contained. If people around you let their cats wander, you might have more of a problem with potential cat-killers. It sounds like the accident in Dr. Khuly's post couldn't have happened in your neighborhood. Wonderful. Responsible pet owners can go a long way towards preventing accidents.
Galadriel July 23rd, 2009 07:07:42 PM
I am a canine aggression expert who did almost ten years of dog bite research and worked in canine legislation for many years.
Dr. Khuly, you wrote, "Dogs that kill cats don't "graduate" to hurting people. Independent of other displays of aggression, it's not considered a risk factor for aggression against humans. Caveat: this is true except when we're talking about dogs with overdeveloped predatory drives in the presence of very young infants (less than 6 months), whom no one in their right mind would leave unsupervised with ANY dog anyway."
I'm afraid the statistics don't back you up on that one.
An aggressive dog is an aggressive dog. Aggressive behaviours tend to escalate over time, and typically encompass more targets. If I had a nickel for every time an owner claimed to be surprised his/her dog was involved in its first biting incident against a human, because it had only behaved aggressively towards other animals (usually other dogs) in the past, let's just say I'd have a lot of nickels.
Aggressive dogs have a history of aggressive behaviour. I know, seems obvious. But it apparently isn't to many people. There's a ridiculous notion that dogs will magically develop aggressive behaviours one day, and successfully use them that same day, too.
Aggressive behaviours are defined as learned behaviours. Too many people confuse perfectly natural self-preservation instincts and impulse control issues with the behaviours we learn in conjunction with those natural impulses. Either by accident, example, or by trial and error, we learn how to get what we want, protect ourselves and our loved ones, and deal with feelings that make us feel we should act, in some way. How we behave is, thus, learned, and only the successful strategies that result in some kind of reward, are the ones we'll continue to utilize. If it's a particularly successful strategy, or if the situation is repeated frequenly, we'll get really good at whatever that coping strategy is. For instance, I correct barking dogs by teaching them what I want them to do, instead (combined with increased obedience training, exercise, and socialization). The reward for not barking overcomes whatever rewards they previously experienced for barking. Some dogs feel rewarded for menacing barking or growling when someone comes to the door, based on what their owners do or don't do, and/or what the person at the door does. The aggressive behaviour is what's rewarded, so that's what the dog will do over and over again. I reward positive behaviours. Some owners reward negative behaviours. It's up to each of us.
No puppy is born knowing that its teeth can cause pain, or that the threat of using its teeth to cause pain can successfully manipulate others. The learning process for aggression in dogs is quite predictable and, thus, preventable. What beings as a display of discomfort by way of stiffened body posture or staring will, if left unaddressed, lead to menacing barking, raised lips and growling, lungeing, attempted bites, and finally successful bites. I often point out that a successful bite is never the first sign of aggression in dogs. It's the last. A lot of practice has to occur before a successful bite takes place.
But getting back to the idea that a cat/dog/lizard killer will never use those aggressive behaviours against humans, I have literally thousands of dog bite case files in my archives and there are simply too many cases to list, that disprove this notion.
One that immediately jumps to mind is the dog that killed a lovely little girl, and was described by both its owner, and the media, as having no history of aggression. This was the dog's first attack against a human, it's true. However, the dog had KILLED two neighbourhood dogs prior to the fatal attack on that little girl. ...The dog's first human bite, evidently.
I'll never forget the case of a boy killed by one or more of several dogs he was caring for, while the owner was away. The owner protested her dogs were not dangerous, despite having KILLED two neighbourhood dogs, and attacked and menaced countless others. There had been no prior reports to authorities about any of the dogs having bitten a human.
I remember a case where a teenage girl who had half her calf ripped off by a dog described as having no history of aggressive behaviour. A family member invited the girl to the home, where the dog proceeded to attack her moments after she entered. The news report tells the tale when the owner vehemently protested her dog is not dangerous, as it had only ever attacked other dogs before. ...Never humans.
Last year, I remember the case of a woman killed by her two dogs. The media slanted this story as though they were friendly, family pets who "suddenly snapped". (The media really likes this angle...even though it has never been true, in my research or experience.) I predicted that a proper (honest) investigation would show a history of aggression in the past, if not against humans, then other animals (as it has in every other case I've investigated). Sure enough, another researcher found the dogs in this case were preceived by neighbours to be aggressive, and had killed cats prior to killing their owner.
I could go on and on and on.
Yes, I'm aware of this pervasive myth that dog-aggression is different than human-aggression. Statistically, there's a great deal of evidence that disproves this notion. It's just that very few people are well-versed in dog bite statistics, especially the extenuating facts and figures.
I spent many years dedicated to saving the lives of dogs allowed (through ignorant, negligent or apathetic ownership) to develop unacceptable, dangerous behaviours, and face "euthanasia" as a result. My position is that it is unacceptable to keep aggressive dogs in human society. Period. Dogs don't get to choose the training and rearing we provide. Thus it is up to us to make sure they have the best chance at being successful in human society, and a long, safe life in a loving, responsible, ethical home. We don't have the right to put them in danger.
I find that dogs allowed to behave unjustifiably-aggressive (towards innocent targets like the paper boy, the neighbour's dog/cat, the mailman, your visiting aunt Betty and her adorable, precocious toddler, Sarah, etc.) are dogs with the lowest life-expectancy. If their owners don't abandon them because they're too difficult to live with or too much of a financial liability, they are all too often put down because of growing concerns about their aggressive behaviours with those owners. Aggressive dogs may even have less access to life-saving/extending veterinary care.
My view of companion dogs is just that: companions. Dogs are not weapons, and shouldn't be turned into them. It's just as ridiculous to allow a dog to threaten an innocent person or his/her pet as it would be to allow your child to threaten them with physical harm.
Dogs have absolutely zero say in how we rear them, so it should always be the owner that suffers any punitive action on their behalf. My experience working in canine legislation proves that most efforts are ineffective. (In fact, I spent a year investigating the disposition of dog bite cases and found the vast majority only resulted in charges for by-law infractions such as, at the time of the bite, the dog was not leashed or licensed or vaccinated. Fines are generally very small. Any restrictions almost always target dogs in ways that decrease their quality of life and, in the case of aggressive dogs, are actually more likely to lead to an escalation in aggressive behaviours.)
I would strongly support legislation that requires owners of dangerous dogs to attend training classes and then have to prove their once-aggressive dogs are no longer a danger. Failure to do so would (ideally) lead to re-homing with a more responsible owner or with an interim aggression expert. Alas, I'm all too aware that's pie in the sky. These experienced homes and trainers aren't so easy to come by, and really hard to find for every individual dog who needs them at that moment. I was that trainer for several shelters and rescue groups. I sent many a formerly-aggressive dog off to be adopted, without any one of them, at least to my knowledge, re-offending. Really, even the most basic responsible ownership principles take care of the vast majority of problem behaviours in dogs.
I taught responsible dog ownership for at least 20 years. The four basic tenets I taught were 'training' (to obey verbal commands, rather than relying on physical restraints such as collars, leashes, fences, locked doors, electric shock, etc.); socialization (so dogs don't feel threatened in any non-threatening situation); exercise (which, aside from the health benefits, prevents the development of frustration-based behaviours, including aggression); and supervision (where the owner can both protect the dog from predictable dangers and inappropriate human behaviour, while directing the dog's behaviour accordingly). It's really not that difficult and certainly does not require any expertise or copious amounts of time to accomplish.
Sadly, requiring dog owners to be responsible is about as productive as 'requiring' good parenting or careful driving. Banning aggressive dogs is about as relevant as banning murder. ...With probably about the same success rate.
Marjorie July 23rd, 2009 07:08:59 PM
Years ago we had two pet rabbits who had free access to our small back yard - secured by a 5 ft wooden fence. One morning two lab-type dogs jumped the fence and killed the bunnies. We heard, but couldn't reach them fast enough. The dogs were still in the yard, and completely people-friendly. They had no issues when we grabbed them by the collar, put them in the car, and hauled them off to Animal Services.
Turns out, they had escaped from home and their owner was frantically in search. We got many thanks for returning the dogs but not much (or any) acknowledgement for the loss of our pets. I was sad - definitely sad - and hurt by the lack of empathy for our bunnies. But would I have wanted the dogs euthanized? Absolutely not. I would have been horrified. If we had had a law like that, I wouldn't have disclosed their behavior - I would have just said I found them running in the street.
It was a very sad incident... but even at the time, I didn't consider the dogs dangerous or aggressive. And I wouldn't brand the owner "irresponsible" because of one incident. Were we partly at fault for giving the rabbits yard privileges? You know, I don't think that either. On most days, they were safe and content in the yard. Not every sad incident has a villian - sometimes it's just a bad convergence of events.
Jan S. July 23rd, 2009 07:21:57 PM
Having been on the receiving end of a pit bull, if one comes in my yard it is dead. It doesn't even have to bite. Here it is legal for me to kill it since simply threatening my goats is a capital offense. Shouldn't children have as much protection?
If I got a lion and it hadn't bit anyone yet, should I really be allowed one bite before I take appropriate action to control the animal? I think not. We ban the breed of 'lion' and I am in favor of banning the pit bull.
Three different dogs in our neighborhood eventually were put down for biting their own owners, all of whom claimed that they were perfectly safe animals. A visit to our pound will show we have 90% pit bulls there. It is a shame that they end up there, but the typical American is not smart enough, or disciplined enough to handle them. Do the dogs a favor and don't bring them home to start with.
I had a bear when I was in college... the only one it ever bit was me because I assumed it would bite anyone within reach even if it was being cute. So I took appropriate care to ensure the safety of others first.
Bob Jones July 23rd, 2009 07:37:00 PM
Sorry Dr. K, don't think you're being logical on this one. I don't care for a law as harsh as the one in question here but I doubt it's unconstitutional either. Nor do I think this is a case of an eye for an eye. Mercedes owner is sorry and says he would have... Yeah, uh huh, sure! Mercedes is a pit bull mix with a high prey drive and 8 years old. If this guy has had Mercedes the whole 8 years, he would know about the prey drive and the need to be especially careful not to let Mercedes "escape". My Shiba has an incredible prey drive and I don't think dogs hide that. Of course I don't approve of the cat being outside either but at least the cat was on the cat's own property.
The simple facts are this dog with high prey drive was not properly trained nor restrained and not only left it's property but entered that of another where it attacked and killed an animal that was resident of that property. If Mercedes' owner didn't address the issues in 8 years, I see no reason to believe he will in the future. Perhaps it would be possible to place Mercedes but that would be difficult and, if that option existed, how many of these types of animals would actually get placed (and noting they would likely be taking the place of another rescued animal with no violent history which will then be put down).
1. This law does take into account both the animal's natural behavior, that it is not acceptable under certain circumstances, and the human's behavior that, if they didn't head off the animal's behavior, they probably won't in the future. There fore a different solution is needed.
2. Once is more than enough when one has had 8 years of familiarity with the animal and breed and the very big potential that it won't be a one time event. There is quite a bit to be said for the old adage that, once a dog has tasted live chicken, it isn't likely to settle for dog food thereafter.
3. An animal is NOT simple property. Exactly. So why would the dog get to take 2 lives before being put down? Animals are not simple property but they aren't people and Barb has the legal reasoning correct. I have better ability to protect my pets than if they were in some special, non-property, category. Once we do that, like children, there will be some agency that can swoop in and snatch them up en masse to hold them, parcel them out to strangers, or put them down at their whim. Unless you think CPS is a truly wonderful organization, you shouldn't support a similar structure for animals.
4. And the average owner will probably pay fines, make promises, and another animal will soon die because that owner didn't do all they should have the second time around.
5. While I agree with this sentiment to some extent, well, yeah, we all pay the price of being our parents' children, of our society's teachings, or our bosses whims. And we all make choices, including dogs, often without full understanding of the consequences or in complete disregard for them.
Does breed matter? Not to me.
Do companion animals have a greater value than other animals. Yep. They have the status of being property and there are some wildlife that have been granted protection as well. Beyond that, the other animals have no status whatsoever until someone undertakes to get some for them. Cats and their prey. No, I don't think there should be a double standard. Pick a penalty and apply to all species.
On a more personal note... If Mercedes had done that to my cat on my property and I'd gotten to Mercedes before the dog catcher or his owner, Mercedes would already be dead. And, yes, I'll shoot a dog, cat, or any other predator in my hen house without batting an eyelash. I would follow my home's tradition of attempting to find the owner and return the body so they won't worry and wonder but I'd not tolerate them giving me any grief about killing the animal they didn't train and contain and who damaged my animals. I would expect the same if one of my dogs got loose and hurt someone else's animals too.
PJBoosinger July 23rd, 2009 07:41:47 PM
Since Bob Jones brought up lions, I'll add that I don't think this dog is much different from Travis the Chimp. Having killed once, Mercedes has proven himself less domesticated than necessary to be a neighborhood pet.
PJBoosinger July 23rd, 2009 07:50:52 PM
I agree with PJBoosinger. If Mercedes came onto my property and killed one of my animals I would shoot it on the spot.
DM Hill July 23rd, 2009 07:57:59 PM
Marjorie:
I do not doubt that your studies show that aggressive dogs (those who bite people) very frequently have a history of aggression towards other companion animals.
What I would like to know, is have you done any study of dogs who are NOT aggressive towards humans (never bite or snap at anybody) and found that they DON'T chase cats. Do all, or most or even a majority of dogs who chase cats go on to bite people? What percentage?
Anne July 23rd, 2009 08:34:00 PM
"What I would like to know, is have you done any study of dogs who are NOT aggressive towards humans (never bite or snap at anybody) and found that they DON'T chase cats. Do all, or most or even a majority of dogs who chase cats go on to bite people? What percentage?"
No, I haven't done any research on cat chasing vs. resultant human bites. :-) I think it's fair to say that not all dogs who chase (anything) will automatically go on to bite humans. Even dogs who are actually aggressive towards non-humans won't all go on to bite people. It's just that many do, and it's incorrect to suggest doing so is rare, or an exception, or that the reason some of them haven't yet expanded their targets is due to some unscientific theory about an innate form of species-specific aggression.
But I would like to clarify that chasing isn't aggression, in the true sense. What happens when the chase is over, if it leads to biting, then the biting is the aggressive behaviour, as would be any other threatening, terrorizing behaviour. It's not that chasing can't be part of an overall aggressive act, but it isn't automatically considered aggressive, on its own. Dogs chase balls, and they're not behaving aggressively in the sense that pretty much everyone uses that term.
Even hunting prey for food wouldn't automatically be considered aggression. The term, aggression, essentially means a threatening act. When I look at large mammalian predators in the hunt, they don't appear to display any threatening behaviours and, dare I say, even seem happy and confident. By definition, the hunt usually means the predator is hidden from the prey. Thus there is no threatening behaviour towards the prey, as a result. It doesn't meet the definition for aggression in the truest sense. Once the prey is aware of the predator, sure it's going to feel threatened. But the predator, itself, usually isn't displaying aggressive behaviours, and only the fatal bites at the very end could be viewed as threatening in most hunting scenarios. (...Even though they're less about threat, and more a means to an end.)
I think people could understand the difference if watching wolves hunting, say, rabbits, and how calm and even playful they can be during that activity, and comparing wolves fighting-off a bear attack. The difference in their behavioural displays would more correctly differentiate between predatory behaviour and true aggressive acts.
Marjorie July 23rd, 2009 09:13:55 PM
if the dog bit someone in their own home, or in their yard, I'd say give the dog another chance. Because the dog was loose, I say, that the dog 's owner looses the dog. Since the dog has been observed in a different setting for a long time now, some behavior " expert" should be able to asses the dog and if it is okay then rehomed. But give the dog back...no...if it isn't able to be trusted, then euthanize.
LorriM July 23rd, 2009 09:28:53 PM
Marjorie, I can easily see the difference in my dogs. Towards my cats (who have no outdoor privileges), they do the bowing and crouching, "wanna play" moves and, at the end of the chase, there's no attempt to do harm even if they have the cat fully cornered. Towards feral cats at our farm, they do their approach by stealth and it's clear their intent is to kill if they can. When we moved to our Houston condo, they had to learn that many outdoor cats here are someone's pet and that they can play but not harm. That was tough for them but they learned it.
PJBoosinger July 23rd, 2009 09:57:48 PM
I do get a little nervous when I see pits, yes I'm prejudiced mainly because I have a reactive little dog who may or may not try to attach himself to the face of a big dog that jumps on him. However....maybe ironically the pit bulls we encounter have been very easy going, dogs that have gone after him after being snarked at? Labs.
People who own pits know they have to train them. People who own Labs, too often believe that "friendly and reliable" is indelible a physical feature as the black or yellow or chocolate color. The pit owners in my neighborhood are the ones who, when met randomly on the street, have been willing to help out in socializing my own reactive little dog, while owners of other breeds have been more likely to find a way to avoid us when she was having a bad day. (Rarer and rarer now! Yay!)
Granted, Slugger was on HIS porch...but what if he wasn't? What if Mercedes WAS leashed and she still grabbed Slugger who himself hunting in a ditch?
But Slugger was on his own porch, not hunting in a ditch, and Mercedes wasn't leashed and under control.
I don't believe Mercedes should be put down for a first offense, but she doesn't get the benefit of hypotheticals that don't describe her case, either.
If I got a lion and it hadn't bit anyone yet, should I really be allowed one bite before I take appropriate action to control the animal? I think not. We ban the breed of 'lion' and I am in favor of banning the pit bull.
Oh, please. "Lion" is not a "breed" but a different species, a wild animal that cannot be socialized to live peacefully and safely with humans.
Pit bulls, on the other hand, are merely a breed of dog, a breed, morevoer, that within living memory was considered a great family pet because they're so tolerant of children, and somewhat protective without being human-aggressive. Do you remember the Little Rascals? Or are you too young to have caught them on Saturday afternoon tv? Their dog was a pit. This was the stereotypical American pet dog, for people who didn't need a herder or a hunter, and did want a dog who could keep up with the kids, when kids were allowed to roam in a way that would have CPS down on the parents like a duck on a june bug, today.
What has changed isn't the breed; it's the fact that it's become popular with people who want to make their dogs dangerous, and they do. Before pits it was Rotties, before Rotties it was Dobermanns, before Dobies it was German Shepherds, before GSDs it was the American Spitz Dog. You've probably never heard of the American Spitz Dog, not because this dangerous breed was successfully eliminated, but because its name was changed: it's now the American Eskimo dog, generally considered an excellent family pet.
It's not the breed that's the problem, it's the people, and targeting this or that breed as inherently dangerous has no useful effect on dog bites or dog attacks.
Since Bob Jones brought up lions, I'll add that I don't think this dog is much different from Travis the Chimp. Having killed once, Mercedes has proven himself less domesticated than necessary to be a neighborhood pet.
Chimps aren't domestic animals, either. They cannot be socialized to be safe, suitable family pets. None of them. As a species. Most dogs can be trained to be safe with cats, although a larger percentage can be trained to be safe with cats in their own home than to be safe with cats outside. And with dogs who can't be trained to be safe with cats, we have ample tools at our disposal to manage them safely.
A zero-tolerance policy always winds up being a zero-intelligence policy. It's bad law, and bad policy.
A heavy fine and enforcement of a requirement for a secure fence and possibly a muzzle when outside the house would be a reasonable response to a first offense.
if the dog bit someone in their own home, or in their yard, I'd say give the dog another chance. Because the dog was loose, I say, that the dog 's owner looses the dog. Since the dog has been observed in a different setting for a long time now, some behavior " expert" should be able to asses the dog and if it is okay then rehomed. But give the dog back...no...if it isn't able to be trusted, then euthanize.
This dog didn't bite anyone. It killed a cat, which is quite serious, but also quite likely a normal prey drive response, not an act of aggression. What's needed here is not a death sentence for the dog for being a dog with high prey drive, but a heavy fine for the owner with some fairly stringent requirements for future management.
As for the dog being observed in a different settingfor a long time now--The dog has been sitting in a kennel since last November. That's a stressful setting for a dog, as is being separated from the only people she knows who care for her. My little dog likes adults, loves children, loves to play with cats (she's as happy being chased by a cat as chasing the cat), and likes most dogs once we get over the stressful excitement of the introduction. (And her dog friends include a cocker spaniel, a German shepherd, a Maltese, a bunch of Chinese Cresteds, two Rotties...) But she easily gets kennel stressed, and I would not want her temperament assessed on the basis of her reactions after she had been sitting in a kennel for months, surrounded by people who know she's scheduled to be put down as a "dangerous dog."
Lis July 23rd, 2009 11:22:36 PM
Geez, louise. I find it laughable that some honestly find it shocking or abnormal for a dog to kill a cat. It doesn't matter how much we attempt to domesticate them...animals are still animals. Even my little 8-week old foster kitty, currently snuggled on my lap and purring loudly, would gladly attempt to kill a mouse if given the opportunity. And this little kitty would also be toast if my dogs had the opportunity. Responsible pet owners recognize that their adorable little pets are still animals, and capable of just about anything. Training to control impulse behaviors, raising different species amongst each other, and proper confinement can go a long way to reducing these types of incidents, but the possibility is always still there. It's an unfortunate situation...I certainly feel bad for the cat's owner, and a dog attack is a pretty nasty way for a cat to go. I agree that the more appropriate thing to do is hit the owner of the dog with a stiff fine for failing to properly confine his pet and issue and order for him to take whatever precautions are necessary to help prevent such a situation fromr recurring. I can only imagine the uproar if this law's wording were to be applied in the veterinary setting...all those snappy little daschunds and chihuahuas and min pins that visit my clinic sentenced to death...
anna July 24th, 2009 01:04:25 AM
For unprovoked, serious injuries towards people, that is. :)
anna July 24th, 2009 01:07:09 AM
"A zero-tolerance policy always winds up being a zero-intelligence policy. It's bad law, and bad policy."
I never claimed to be intelligent. In this neighborhood people have pit bulls for "protection". Most owners are teenagers or early 20's that you wouldn't trust with matches, let alone a pit bull. If you can't keep your pants up so your butt crack doesn't show, I doubt you are going to properly train and restrain a pit bull.
It's also amazing that whenever one of these properly trained pit bulls gets old and bites their owner, we ignore ten years of good behavior and blame the training rather than the breed. Many dogs of all breeds get cranky when they get old because their senses are dulled and you can surprise them easier.
When the old Shitsu gets cranky and takes a nip out of your finger it is nothing like the pit bull that takes off half your face. You will never convince me that the breed is not at fault for the risk presented by its ability and propensity to kill.
The German shepherd that is trained for K-9 service is using its play instinct, not its chase and kill instinct. The pit is bred to fight and kill. Can it be cutsy...I'm sure. But it is just a time bomb because of the instinctive behavior and ability. I had no doubt that the lab that chased my goat was playing. It was a wonderful thing to watch. I would have shot a pit bull that did the same.
I'm admittedly a breed-ist. When the pit bull displays intelligence over instinct as a breed, maybe I will display some intelligence toward it.
I find it interesting that there is no comment on our responsibility to protect children even more than our livestock. A dog in the chicken coop is dead. A dog that threatens sheep or goats is dead. These are zero-tolerance policies long established in the west. If someone drops a city dog along a farm road, it's dead.
But if it bites our children, for heaven's sake, lets give it the chance to do it two or three times before we kill it. Eastern children must not be as valuable as western livestock.
I must be right.... I do it for the children. ;-)
Bob Jones July 24th, 2009 01:24:39 AM
If someone had already mentioned this, then I appologize. But, I object to the distinction between a dog attacking a companion animal and attacking a wild animal. If there is no other kind of companion animal in a dog's home, how is the dog to tell the difference? I imagine that from a dog's point of view, the differences between a squirrel on a porch and a cat on a porch when seen from the road would be minimal and when they both start to run, instinct would kick in.
However, as some people have said: This is the dog owner's fault. Either because he didn't understand the nature of his pet, or simply by accidentally loosing control of his animal.
TN July 24th, 2009 07:51:26 AM
On dog bite stats and predatory aggression: Dogs that display aggression towards humans are more likely to fall into the category of those with inter-dog and predatory aggression. That's because their aggression is aberrant. But dogs with predatory aggression need not necessarily be lumped in with those other dogs. It's also true that dogs who display protective aggression (barking and growling from across a fence) are also more likely to bite a human. Even though this is a normal behavior.
Yes, I'll concede that any display of aggression is a risk factor for aggression against humans. Consider that we know obesity is a risk factor for diabetes in pets. Yet we all understand that only a small percentage all fat animals are diabetic--it's just one of many risk factors. It certainly shouldn't follow that any dog that displays aggression should be lumped in with aberrantly aggressive dogs...just because all aberrantly aggressive dogs display these forms of aggression, too.
I will reiterate: Dogs to not graduate to biting humans after killing cats. It's not like the "marijuana as gateway drug" studies or even like the "animal torturers will eventually torture humans" statistics. Predation is normal for dogs, just as it is for cats.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 24th, 2009 08:03:33 AM
And on a personal note: I adore cats, as does the vast majority of the readers here. I shouldn't have to defend myself or others on that front based on this post and its ensuing comments. Please do not feel it's acceptable to twist logic to attack anyone based on cat hatred. It's not productive. Lets all keep the arguments rational please.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 24th, 2009 08:09:17 AM
I don't know how to better prove that a dog's first bite against a human (sometimes the first bite against a human is a fatal one) only comes after a lot of practice behaving aggressively and, in the majority of cases, that practice was on other (domestic) animals, other than to continue to cite examples, as I did above. It is simply fallacy that dogs have an innate form of species-specific aggression, and will stick with that. Given the same wrong circumstances involved in most biting incidents, ANY dog that is well-practiced at aggression is a potential danger to humans, regardless whether their previous aggression attempts have been towards other animals...cats most definitely included. It is the proficiency of the aggressive behaviours that make a dog dangerous to society...not necessarily its targets. Dogs that use aggression as a coping strategy, and have successfully used this method many times in the past, are likely to use it again, when they feel it is necessary. Ah, what the heck, maybe 30 years training dogs, being an aggression expert, and a decade of dog bite research don't hold any weight. :-(
Marjorie July 24th, 2009 09:20:36 AM
It is very sad when things like this happen, but how many bites would you give a dog? How many dead cats? This dog didn't just hurt the cat, he killed it, which, natural or not, does say something about his aggression level. Are we really supposed to think the owner didn't realize his dog would do that? And he got out at least once, what's to say the owner won't relax in a few months and let him get loose again? It is tragic for the dog and his owner, and yes, killing the dog does feel wrong, but it is a tough situation, and you can't take risks like that... what if a kid had tried to defend the cat? Also, in my state, you CAN lose your car, or your house, or other property on a first offense. Happens to drug dealers/users all the time. Usually they will sell your car back to you, but they still take it.
saddened by both deaths July 24th, 2009 10:03:04 AM
TN - thank you for your observations. How is a dog to distinguish a feral cat vs. beloved pet cat vs. squirrel vs. ferret without prior conditioning/exposure? Dogs aren't known for being particularly democratic. Many hunting breeds (No offense Marjorie...but these dogs, bay dogs or coursing dogs particularly, have been specifically designed to have proficient, persistent aggressive behaviors...not very useful to a hunter if they don't) will simply resort to default mode. Also, I happen to know several dogs who cohabitate safely with their "own" cats, yet will still harass, tree, and even kill unfamiliar cats. PJBoosinger noted this with his dogs as well. Had my dogs been raised with a housecat, it would be alive. They were raised with horses and cattle and they do not harass them. They do not attack small dogs. I state again, it is not Slugger's fault that he is a cat. How is Mercedes' owner to know about this terrible consequence if (A) she has never escaped home/yard/leash containment before, (B) she has never encountered a cat while loose? Aside from chalking it up in the possibilities of "things terrier-mixes MAY do while on unauthorized, unsupervised, outing"?
My comments about alternative scenarios were not to diminish Slugger's death, or get Mercedes' owner off the hook, they were to illustrate that the zero-tolerance policies are poor policies!
I did not elaborate on the circumstances of the cat killings by my dogs because apparently it is all black and white some of you readers. Yet, you've got three commentators here that would NOT hesitate to shoot Mercedes (with or without a bite to them or their pets/livestock) should she step foot on their property. I know plenty of people with similar policies and they don't all have PJBoosinger's house rule of informing the owner when possible. Instead they adhere to the code of "Triple S" (Shoot, Shovel, ShutUp). Noone has raised a fuss about dogs killing ‘vermin' such as raccoons, opossum, groundhogs, or rats. And according to you, my dogs, who happened to kill unidentified cats that entered their large, securely fenced enclosure are a danger to society. Ditto for the episode during which my dog (who was on a 20'check-cord) discovered a cat in a culvert while we were hiking along a rural tractor trail. We were miles from any porch, the dog was leashed, and she killed a cat in a matter of seconds! Pardon me if I didn't get her in line for the euthanasia solution!
Sadly I do not live in the wonderland that you do, Confused...where "people do not leave their companion animals out of doors. We keep them in our homes, fenced yards, or walking on a leash." Unfortunately I live in a place where cats are all too frequently the victims of neglect, abuse, abandonment and disease. It saddens me that some of you leap to conclusions of cat hatred. Nothing could be further from the truth...I enjoy cats very much and believe that these cats deserve better - MUCH better.
Once again, there is NO evidence that dogs who display predatory behavior toward cats are more likely to show the same behavior toward adults or children. But, then again, what do I know? I am suffering from chronic fatigue...don't get much rest these days knowing my dangerous cat killing dogs are plotting to maul me in my sleep.
Sarah B. July 24th, 2009 10:04:49 AM
"A zero-tolerance policy always winds up being a zero-intelligence policy. It's bad law, and bad policy."
I never claimed to be intelligent. In this neighborhood people have pit bulls for "protection". Most owners are teenagers or early 20's that you wouldn't trust with matches, let alone a pit bull. If you can't keep your pants up so your butt crack doesn't show, I doubt you are going to properly train and restrain a pit bull.
In other words, it's an owner problem and not a breed problem. And you know that.
It's also amazing that whenever one of these properly trained pit bulls gets old and bites their owner, we ignore ten years of good behavior and blame the training rather than the breed. Many dogs of all breeds get cranky when they get old because their senses are dulled and you can surprise them easier.
Your second sentence in that paragraph contradicts the first: You know perfectly well the behavior has nothing to do with breed.
When the old Shitsu gets cranky and takes a nip out of your finger it is nothing like the pit bull that takes off half your face. You will never convince me that the breed is not at fault for the risk presented by its ability and propensity to kill.
There's a difference in the power of the bite, and what's within easy reach of the startled dog's teeth, not in the behavior itself. And if you manage your fluffy little Shih Tzu carelessly so that he bites you or someone else, you are likely someday to get a nasty surprise--because a small dog can't do much damage to most adults, but a hemophiliac or a small child, in the wrong circumstances, could be at serious risk.
So no, it's not the breed that's at fault, it's the owners.
Lis July 24th, 2009 10:04:55 AM
Let's bring back something else here - "Wait a second, a dog doing a normal dog thing gets the death sentence, but that creepy cat mauler you mentioned awhile back gets a hand slap for sadistically destroying nineteen times the amount of "property"? I LOVE common sense! Punish the owner, not the dog..." LaShelle
I don't here any of the people calling others 'cat haters' saying anything about this kid. It is most certainly NOT normal human behavior to hunt, kill, and mutilate, and then, arrange a grotesque display of the animal just to upset/scare others. Why should this kid get away with this? Oh, yeah, the 'just cats' excuse. Well, why, if a dog kills (and that's all) a cat, does the dog have to die?
We don't have all the information on the dog in this case. Marjorie says that the owner should have known, having had the dog for years, that the dog was aggressive. We don't know if this dog ever showed aggression (and according to some people, that could be shown by raising hackles or growling, which every dog can - and does - in their lifetimes), so there is every chance that he didn't think she would kill a cat. Accidents happen when dogs get loose. My own gate was purposely opened by someone, and my dogs got loose. If they had killed anything (and 4 dogs running would make any cat or rabbit run, and 1 of them could have caught and 3 of them would have killed under those circumstances), yes, technically, it would have been my fault that my dogs were loose and harmed property. Does that mean they should die for it? I'd have to say no, because I didn't let them loose on purpose. What was the case with Mercedes getting out of her owner's control? That's where the start of blame needs to be.
KateH July 24th, 2009 10:54:17 AM
As the owner of three large dogs, I find it my responsibility to make sure that they are never allowed to get loose.We walk them several times a day on a 6 foot leash and when they go out in our fenced backyard we go with them.I would feel very badly if they killed a neighborhood cat.I know all of them and pat them when I have a chance.However,I do not feel kindly towards the neighbors who do not keep their cats inside.I feel they are irresponsible pet owners who are setting their cats up to be run over or killed by a predator,be that a dog or racoon.
Susan H July 24th, 2009 11:20:27 AM
I feel the need to preface my comment by saying I am not a cat hater. I have three cats who are very much a part of my family and are loved and treated as such. That being said, I think some of the blame has to lie with Slugger's owner. Pet owners who allow their animals to roam free (uncontained and unsupervised), be them dogs or cats, are opening their pets up to a whole slew of risks, which are not limited to dog attacks. These owners have to accept some responsibility for the fate that befalls their companion animal.
I do not think that dogs that kill another animal, compainon or not, deserve to put to death. I'm a strong believer in punishing the owner not the pet. The above situation was an accident. Mercedes was 8 years old. One mistake on the owners behalf does not a bad pet owner make. In my eyes, he concedes fault by saying he is sorry the attack happened. He aknowledges that her predatory behaviour (instinct)will have to dealt with and that he will make more reinforcements to Mercedes surrondings so that this doesn't happen again.
I am disturbed the number of posters who are willing to shoot animals that come onto their propertywith or withoutthreats totheir own pets/livestock. I'm sorry to say this but these replys make me think of a news article out Texas from a couple of years agowhere a gentleman was watching his neighbors house while said neighbor was out of town. One day, the house was broken into by two men. The 'watcher' called 911, to report the break-in and to let the operator know that if the police didn't arrive in 30 seconds he would kill the perpetrators. And he did just that, despite the 911 operator protesting. He shot both of them in the back as they ran away from the scene.
Shady July 24th, 2009 11:59:01 AM
Marjorie: I don't disagree with you at all. Your logic is sound. But I don't necessarily agree on how statistical risk factors should influence policy decisions. Should we euthanize all dogs who bite people? Bark aggressively? Kill cats? I'd have almost no dogs left in my practice to treat.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 24th, 2009 12:01:24 PM
I'm sorry, but on this one I disagree with the general thoughts of this board. Maybe because I don't own a dog, but if a dog attacked me or one of my cats, I would want the owner to be held responsible (and trust me, if you put their dog down they are being punished - granting that so is the dog to a greater extent)
I doubt anyone who owns a dog who attacks has NO indication that it is in the dog's nature. Either they are clueless or in denial if they feel their "sweet little dog" went from innocent to a preditor with no forwarning. You mention insiting that owners of a dog that attacks THEN put in double doors, etc. If they knew before hand, and were not cautious, what makes you think that preventitive messures like these will always be enforced?
If it had happened to a child, however, all bets would be off. That kind of predatory behavior against humans is aberrant and I agree that dogs who attack humans in this way do not deserve a second chance. Period.
So the dog now knows the difference between a child (not of it's household) and another animal? I understand the human distinction between the killing of an animal and the killing of a human child, but you can not think the dog can make that distinction. Prey is prey.
It is sad that humans fail to control their animals. Because of these failings you see pets killed in all sorts of ways. Dogs getting loose and running into the street and getting hit by a car, or running away to be lost and either be picked up by animal control or lost in the wild to fall into a pond and freeze to death. It is very rare that these pets act on these impulses and are successful the first time.
Failure to be responsible for these impulses of their pets IS the fault of the owners, and while the law coming down on them might get them to comply in the future, I don't believe it will force them to comply 100% of the time for the rest of the pet's life.
I hope there is a provision in this law that owners who have their dogs put down because of this law, are no longer allowed to own pets.
Connie July 24th, 2009 12:07:34 PM
This situation happened to me, only the cat was one of our barncats, and it was killed by our pack of 4 whippets. It was horrific, and I'll never forget it as long as I live. But do I blame my sighthounds for doing precisely what they were bred to do? Nope, not a bit. Do I blame the cat for its stupidity in [somehow] entering the well-fenced, with 2"x2" mesh, dog yard? It has to be admitted that I do, a little. Do I blame myself for not taking preventative action once I concluded that the cat wasn't smart enough to avoid the dog yard? OH HELL YES. I will have Roscoe's death on my conscience forever.
Now, that said, my dogs' prey drive has ZERO to do with their aggression or lack of it to any animals. A prey-driven dog doesn't show aggression; it shows instinct. I don't get how anybody could conflate the two. (Except, it seems like there is more misinformation about canine aggression than in any other aspect of canine life. That's why goofs like Cesar Milan are so popular.) As the owner of animals that does has enormous prey drive, it's my responsibility to make sure it isn't directed at any living critter except actual varmints. I own a bitch whose dam killed many loose cats in a farm setting. Because of that, I was too cautious to even attempt socializing her as a puppy to cats (maybe if I'd had a big mean & nasty tom cat...) -- I just couldn't take that kind of risk with a cat's life. Therefore, I have to make sure she is never able to chase a cat, because if it's running and she's loose, it's dead. That's the way sighthounds are, and by golly, I wouldn't want it any different. I like my breed for its intended purpose -- otherwise I'd get a mutt.
Now this bitch LOVES children. She LOVES them -- oh, to see her whole body waggle, it's a joy -- even if she doesn't get to be around them much. I would never suspect her to express any aggression to a child. Somehow she can make a distinction between a toddler and a varmint. (But like cats, I'm never going to give her an opportunity to be unsupervised with a child.)
I'm with Dr. Steve -- breaking up a brick won't prevent future brick-related injuries. Unresponsible dog owners should be fined stiffly, and if I was Mercedes' owner I'd find a way to pay & atone as best I could, but I would not want the dog's life taken if it was merely expressing misdirected prey drive.
Julie in OH July 24th, 2009 01:06:07 PM
Did you know that the pitbull is the breed most likely to kill. Why anyone would choose this breed as a home pet surprises me when there are many others to choose from. I did a little research and this is what I found.
In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
These are real cited studies. This is not based on anecdotal evidence. I was not able to find any studies that show when a dog kills other companion animals it is not likely to express that agression towards humans. We know pitbulls are dangerous killers and that is a given.
Francis in KY July 24th, 2009 01:24:16 PM
Oh wow Francis.
Nice of you to OMIT the authors' actual conclusion which states:
"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites." (J Am VetMed Assoc 2000;217:836-840)
One wonders how many in this count were actually registered as American Pit Bull Terriers.
Mercedes is not purebred and she is not accused of a DBRF!
Sarah B. July 24th, 2009 01:37:58 PM
Meant to insert HUMAN in front of DBRF.
Mercedes is guilty as charged of a CAT DBRF.
Sarah B. July 24th, 2009 01:41:55 PM
Did you know that the pitbull is the breed most likely to kill. Why anyone would choose this breed as a home pet surprises me when there are many others to choose from. I did a little research and this is what I found.
In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
Francis, what you're missing is the signficance of two phrases: "in recent years" and, in your next paragraph, "pit bull-type dogs."
In past decades, the "dangerous dogs," the dogs that were guaranteed to become unpredictably and likely fatally vicious, that were [believed to be] responsible for most bites, were identified as the offending dogs in most serious attacks on humans and most dog-related human fatalities, were Dobermanns, or German Shepherds, or the American Spitz Dog, now known as the American Eskimo Dog and regarded as an excellent family pet. Whereas the American Pit Bull Terrier was the stereotypical American family pet, for people who wanted an active dog to keep up with the kids, but didn't need a hunter or a herder.
Because in past decades, those other breeds were each in their turn the one that was popular with the kind of people who want their dogs to be dangerous. But even when I was a kid and we were all supposed to cower in fear from that vicious, ravening beast, the Dobermann, a neighbor had one who was a sweet, even-tempered dog who was a great companion for their kids.
And even now, when all the thugs want pit bulls, and people like you still remember the recent past when all the thugs wanted Rotties, there are still plenty of ordinary families who still want these dogs for their proper breed characteristics--somewhat protective of their families but generally friendly and people-oriented, very tolerant of children, and energetic but highly trainable dogs to keep up with an active family.
Succeed in banning pit bulls, and the thugs will move on to a different breed.
And "pit bull-type dogs"--most people can't identify a pit bull when shown a set of pictures in which only one dog is a pit. One of my neighbors has a sweet, friendly boxer whom another of my neighbors is sure is really a "pit bull." In Ontario, where there's a sweeping, extreme pit bull ban ("If Animal Control thinks it looks like a pit, it's a pit, and it dies"), Labrador retrievers from good breeders have been identified as pit bulls. All over the US and Canada, dog bite stories that list no breed, or a different breed, when the story is published in the local paper, become "pit bulls" when the story is picked up by regional or national news media.
So the statistics are meaningless, and even if they weren't, they'd really say nothing about the breed, but a great deal about the owners.
Lis July 24th, 2009 01:45:49 PM
She is a killer of a beloved family pet. The beloved family pet was doing nothing wrong. It seems that some people believe it was irresponsible for the beloved family pet to be on it's own porch though I do not fall into that catagory. She killed because she is a killer. There are all kinds of animals that are killers it is just that most of them are not considered domestic house pets. Many will continue to defend these killer dogs and that is their right. Some have even bragged that they own cat killers but they are loving animals they would never live without. That is your right to own that type of dog but it is not right for your dog to kill the beloved family pets of others. The two camps will never agree on this heated topic. I will never accept that it is acceptable to just let dogs be dogs and kill family pets. I am not able to see the other side and how that would ever be acceptable behavior.
Francis in KY July 24th, 2009 01:57:41 PM
In her short life my dog has managed to catch and kill one extremely stupid squirrel and two mice, and I have no doubt that if given the chance she would certainly chase and possibly kill a cat. Because to her, they're all prey animals. Fortunately we live in an apartment and she is never off leash in unfenced areas. But there are plenty of outdoor cats in our densely populated urban neighborhood and owners who leave their gates wide open. So I do my best to be a responsible owner, and I'm working on my dog's recall and attention in order to counteract her very strong prey drive. But you know what? Accidents happen. Dogs slip their leash and act on their completely natural impulses sometimes. I would feel absolutely horrified and apologetic if she ever injured another companion animal, but that doesn't make her an aggressive dog. It makes her a dog.
Mary July 24th, 2009 02:19:43 PM
Francis, no one is saying that it is acceptable to allow it to happen.
Some of us are saying that a "one strike and the pet is dead," with opportunity for the owner to correct the situation and ensure it doesn't happen again, is not right.
As for pets who are "killers," that includes my younger cat who is a dandy little mouser (one of the reasons humans and cats moved in together, after all.) Prey drive is natural in the predators we have taken into our homes; the key is training and management. My cat, and for that matter my small dog, who has also killed (a squirrel) don't ever get a chance to hunt people's pet rodents. But if something went wrong, and my dog killed the squirrel someone was intentionally feeding, or my cat killed someone's pet rat accidentally let loose, I would not think it right for them to be summarily excecuted, without the chance for me to correct whatever management error led to that.
I agree that Slugger wasn't "roaming" and had avery right to be on his front porch--but it is a riskier place to be than inside the house. And despite Margorie's speculation, no one has offered even a claim, much less evidence, that Mercedes had ever got loose before in six years of being owned by this man, or that she had ever shown aggression or a dangerous level of prey drive. There's no reason for her to be excecuted for a first offense.
Lis July 24th, 2009 02:22:25 PM
The CDC study that is referred to report that Francis references above has been debunked because it was based entirely on media reports of dog attacks. Karen Delise's wonderful book "The Pitbull Placebo" provides an excellent account of the history of so-called aggressive breeds in this country, starting with bloodhounds at the turn of the last century. She also takes a close look at a lot of the media accounts that were included in the CDC study. Turns out that in many cases the attacking dog wasn't a pit bull at all, and most of the "family pet turned killer" cases were abused and neglected dogs raised in isolation. The book is a great read. I recommend it highly.
Mary July 24th, 2009 02:28:47 PM
Lis stated "As for pets who are "killers," that includes my younger cat who is a dandy little mouser (one of the reasons humans and cats moved in together, after all.) Prey drive is natural in the predators we have taken into our homes; the key is training and management. My cat, and for that matter my small dog, who has also killed (a squirrel) don't ever get a chance to hunt people's pet rodents. But if something went wrong, and my dog killed the squirrel someone was intentionally feeding, or my cat killed someone's pet rat accidentally let loose, I would not think it right for them to be summarily excecuted, without the chance for me to correct whatever management error led to that."
These are not beloved family pets. It concerns me that many compare the killing of a family pet to that of a mouse or squirrel. It is interesting that these odd scenarios are dreamed up to explain away the murder of Slugger.
Please take a look at this incident where two pit bulls were "just being dogs" and attacked another dog and tell me that these dogs should not be punished.
Francis in KY July 24th, 2009 02:31:28 PM
Oh dear, Francis!
You are right, we will not agree.
Cats themselves are killers and they are also domestic house pets.
I pointed out earlier that some breeds of dogs have been specifically designed for centuries to have and implement proficient, persistent, aggressive behaviors in order to assist hunters. And when that purpose backfires due to an unintentional, temporary lapse in 100% control/containment responsibility, the DOG takes the hit!!! THAT, I do not agree with in the context of cat killing.
Julie and myself happen to own these sorts of dogs (not trying to put words in your mouth, Julie)
Are we aware of the dogs' capabilities? YES
Have we taken proper precautions to ensure that our dogs are not roaming the countryside on a killing spree that is inclusive of pet cats? YES
Do we dislike cats? NO
Do we object to stiff fines and possibly other measures ie. muzzles if our dogs are implicated in a pet cat's death? NO
Do we actively seek cats out or intentionally set the dogs on cats? NO
In fact, the dogs and I managed to pass by two cats early this morning while on our LEASHED walk with nothing more than mild interest. No cats harmed today...so far!
But, until there are leash laws for cats, I CANNOT guarantee the absolute safety of a cat that enters my well-fenced dog yard when the dogs are out there.
Cripes - Apparently we are all destined for a future of owning nothing but Maltese???
Let's use more random statistics and leap to conclusions: My lifetime chances of being thrown from my mare and killed are apparently 1:31,760
This is in contrast to my odds of death from being bitten or struck by a dog 1:115,489
Clearly horses are dangerous killers and should be banned!
http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx
Sarah B. July 24th, 2009 02:41:20 PM
I have tried to make the distinction of family pets that kill other family pets. Dogs have been bred to do many things that I consider are no longer acceptable in modern society. The breeds that are designed to fight and kill really do not have a place in a modern community. I guess it just comes down to why humans choose to have companion animals. For some of us it is for the love and friendship of a furry friend. I do not want an agressive animal I need to worry about killing my neighbor's companion animal. I do not want to complete a walk and claim hooray no cats were harmed today.
Francis July 24th, 2009 02:53:24 PM
Francis; Growing up, my housecat killed a cockatiel I adored. Cats are more likely to kill their prey than merely hurt them (unlike dogs). This behavior is almost impossible to modify (not so for dogs). The distinction between dogs and cats in this very similar situation is primarily in the minds of those who would value a pet cat over any other pet smaller than it.
Anyone who keeps cats and small prey species as pets knows to be careful. It's the human's fault is life is lost or injury ensues.
This problem is also complicated by property right issues: My cat vs. your dog. My clients who've had dogs hurt or kill their own cats have always blamed themselves...not the dogs. Not so much for those whose neighbors' dogs have done the deed. Why is blaming the human so much more difficult than blaming the animal?
Dr. Patty Khuly July 24th, 2009 03:55:46 PM
First, let me tell you that I am sitting here while three of my dogs lay on their dog bed with five little kittens I handreared as a foster. One kitten stretches and my bulldog mix licks it before falling back asleep.
HOWEVER, the self-same feral cat colony that produced these kittens has suffered losses due to my dogs. When this happened my dogs were on my property within my fenced backyard. The first time it occurred they were outside, a feral jumped from one of our pines and ran across the yard, the dogs followed, and before I could stop anything the cat was whole (no broken skin) but dead. This has happened three times in the two years I have lived here, and it is sad every single time. My fencing is four foot high chain link, the cats are untouchable and fed by a neighbor (none are able to be handled or ccaught). Along with the neighbor we have been working with a local rescue to trap, spay/neuter, release. She refuses to allow any to be placed at other farms, but acknowledges that there are too many here. She believes coyotes will control the population, yet I am certain she would freak out if she knew that our dogs had killed one of the ferals. This said, whenever a kitten is hurt or the mother is unable to nurse, I, not her, end up with them. This is my third hand-fed litter, and the sixth litter overall that I have worked with (the others were feral little hissy bundles of fluff that I tamed down for adoption).
My dogs have done great with them. The difference? They are tame, they don't take off like a shot, and they smell like humans. These dogs are also good around the cats of friends (when we were over at other places and the cat would appear and rub up against them). I do not believe mu dogs are 'dangerous' animals. I do not approve of the behavior and try to ensure all cats are off of my property before I let them out, but I cannot make the fence cat proof.
I don't think the dog deserves a 'one strike, you're out' when the fact that the dog was off of it's own property is what makes the case, and that was due to owner error.
jen July 24th, 2009 04:19:50 PM
I've had small animals (rats, mice, bunnies, gpigs) and cats at the same time. Right now I have cats and dogs and a bunny. Years ago, our shihtzu made short work of two gpigs, which was horrible and unfortunate and NOT the dog's fault. Same goes for when I had a hamster escape her home and become a victim of my favorite cat. NOT the cat's fault. When this sort of thing happens, you cannot blame the animal for doing what they were put here to do. At the same time, you cannot compare dogs (or cats) biting/being aggressive with humans to what they would do with another species. And as a person with four dogs, one of which I have NO doubt would kill a cat, all I can do is be responsible and make sure they aren't in a position to harm any individuals at all. Mercedes does NOT deserve to die for a first offense, even though it is so incredibly sad that Slugger lost his life. She's a dog. Some dogs do this. Her humans should be fined, and made to reinforce their home/yard and ensure that Mercedes never ever gets out unattended and loose again, and if she does, and re-offends, then other measures should be taken, possibly even euthanasia. I've known many dogs who simply could not be trusted with other animals, even other dogs, but were absolutely wonderful with people. But to kill a dog the first time it kills a cat, would be like killing your cat the first time it eats your pet hamster. It's messed up and makes no sense to me at all.
Brooke July 24th, 2009 05:00:13 PM
Francis, that very sensationalist website does not even attempt to assess the owners' management and training of the dogs, the dogs' history, or what may have preceded the attacks--nothing to substantiate your trusting belief that it's the dogs that are at fault, not the owners.
Dogs that would leap through a window to get to another dog and kill it may well be too dangerous to rehabilitate, but how did they get that way? Vanishingly tiny number of dogs are born with genetically unmanageable aggression, and despite your beliefs, pits are not over-represented among them.
And I'm fairly confident that they have no more idea than you do what a "pit bull" is, or ability to distinguish between, say, a pit bull and a Labrador retriever.
Hysteria is not an argument.
As for rodents: no, wild mice are not beloved family pets. Pet mice and pet rats are, and my cats and my dog wouldn't know the difference unless I actively taught them that particular rodents (mice, rats, hamsters, guinea pigs) were Family, Not Prey--and then I wouldn't leave them unsupervised with access to them, because it would be unfair to expect that training to hold in any and all circumstances, overriding their instincts if the rodents did something prey-like--like accidentally escape their confinement, and scurry across the floor.
And shocking as the idea may seem to you, some people do feed squirrels, encourage their presence, and feel quite attached to them. But my dog wouldn't know the difference between somebody's pet, and a completely wild squirrel.
Many breeds have been bred specifically for their tendency to chase and kill smaller furry critters. For such dogs, cats outside, whether they are pets or not, often act like prey, and the dog doesn't have the means to distinguish them, whereas most dogs can tell the difference between outside cats, and the cats that live in their own homes.
My cats don't roam outside, not because of what they might do to other people's property, or the rodent population, or even the songbird population, but because, among other dangers, dogs and coyotes are a real threat to roaming cats.
Lis July 24th, 2009 05:35:32 PM
My work here is done. I just hope that none of your pets are ever mauled and killed like Slugger was as I am sure you might not be quite so understanding. You do not need to respond to me as this is my last visit to this blog. I have spoken to many people today about what some of you are promoting and they are shocked. They are shocked that a veterinary professional would take this side of an issue. I still am waiting to see some research that backs up the claim that dog on animal violence does not have anything to do with dog on human violence. Is it possible that it just does not exist????????
Now back to better things like loving up my fur friends. ;)
Francis July 24th, 2009 06:43:40 PM
@Sarah B., I'm quite okay with your lumping. =) I would be very sad in a world without working dogs, and I daresay dog attacks of any kind (as a percentage of the dog population) would not statistically drop.
Another book: Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous. BSL is a band-aid solution, and like most band-aid solutions, it's completely wrong-headed.
@Francis: you are not seeing my distinction between prey drive and aggressiveness. I will defend my dogs' prey drive; I will not defend any aggressiveness. There is a difference. I can't speak to Mercedes' behavior because I wasn't there. But there is certainly a possibility that this was a prey drive induced event, in which case the dog is unlikely to harm any animal, assuming the owner wises up enough to control his dog.
And I do not at all brag about my dogs' cat killing. It is something that affected me deeply and still does to this day. It was my fault that it happened, and I'll make no bones about it. Make no mistake, Roscoe's blood is on my hands.
Julie in OH July 24th, 2009 06:49:57 PM
The only thing both sides of this argument are going to agree on is that we cannot agree.
Why on earth shouldn't Slugger and his owner be allowed to enjoy some sunshine on their own porch ? (On the owners property).
I have 5 dogs who are fine with my 3 cats. They are not so reliable with 'outsiders' as I found out the night we all went outside and their was a stray cat loose in our shed. Luckily the cat managed to get out and away, but not before 2 full on laps of the shed. Now I always shut the shed door, just in case.
If they had killed any cat on my property, it would be dreadful, but since they were on MY property, that is as far as it would go. If they (for any reason) got on to somebody elses property (or public property) and killed their beloved family member it would be devastating ! I sure as heck wouldn't offer to have them put down, and if the aggreived owner would accept my apologies in $$$ I would be forever grateful. But, if they insisted, I could not in all concience argue against it - If Mercedes had got on my property and killed one of my cats I'd want her dead. Sorry, her owner's no longer to be trusted as far as I'm concerned, and other families are suffering for his negligence.
I padlock the gate to my property so that nobody can open it and let my dogs out (and onto the road !!). The phrase 'punish the deed and not the breed' comes to mind. It's just co-incidental in this case (if) Mercedes is a Pittie mix. 4 of my dogs are Rotties so BSL is not one of my favourite things. This to me would be punishing to deed. As somebody else noted, although the dog is paying the ultimate price, the owner is still being punished. And yes, give him a stiff fine too.
Maybe it makes me a hypocrite ( I won't argue against it), but as far as killing vermin (wild animals) goes, part of my objection in this case is my empathy with Sluggers owner. Justice on his part needs to be seen to be done.
Alison July 24th, 2009 07:54:20 PM
BTW. I am always looking for alternatives and I just gave the Dazer II a test run. It is basically an electronic dog whistle. 9 out of 10 dogs stopped in their tracks from approaching the goats. The one that didn't had a lawn mower running next to it which likely interferred with the sound of it. Three of the dogs were pit bull or part pit breeds. After the initial confrontation, the dogs treated the goats with deference as though they were responsible for the sound. (The one that didn't stop still had a chain link fence to separate us.) All of the dogs were on their own property and we were the trespassers by walking in the street in front of them.
With almost all of them we were able to get nose to nose with them and they still maintained composure or a submissive posture. I highly recommend it for anyone who jogs, or rides bikes or walks goats. I am not affiliated with the company that makes or sells them.
I will likely buy another so that when we are hiking someone in the lead and the rear each have one. Prevention is much better than remediation.
Bob Jones July 24th, 2009 08:04:56 PM
Francis wrote: "Dogs have been bred to do many things that I consider are no longer acceptable in modern society."
Maybe this applies to cats as well. I'm old enough to remember when dogs weren't required to be either leashed or contained; but as the human population density increased with suburban sprawl, dog laws were passed for various reasons in many urban and suburban areas. Now, that the cat population is becoming problematic in many places, maybe it's time to extend the laws to cats.
I have no problem with cats as pets (I've had some in the past) though I prefer dogs, and sometimes I've had both at the same time. I haven't had many cats, but I have noticed that the nicer, friendlier cats were lousy hunters, while the better hunters weren't really "pets". They just stayed around for the food and a warm place to sleep in the winter. Most people I know who "have" cats don't really have "companion animals". They just started feeding a stray, which then stayed, but which is let out at night so the owners don't have to deal with a litter box. I think the number of cats as "pets" is increasing because cats are still, overall, a low maintenance pet, much the way dogs used to be.
I raise finches in back yard. Over the years, I've had to learn to cat-proof my bird colony from the cats that are allowed to roam outside at night. The cats' owners didn't care - that's what cats do was their response. And it's just birds. As for taking care of the rats and mice, these cats were lousy mousers. They were just after my birds. And I had no legal recourse.
So, I got a small terrier. The cats stopped coming into my back yard, and the rat and mouse problem finally diminished.
As population density increases in an area, maybe tagging, vaccination, and containing cats will be necessary. The number of stray, sick feral dogs has deceased since dog laws were instituted; maybe the same approach will work for cats.
This is somewhat off-topic, but I'm not sure that dogs chasing cats is prey behavoir. I've watched my terrier on his walks (always on a leash, and never a flexi-leash)) and his responses to cats and to squirrels and the like are different. He seems to plan more when he sees a rodent or squirrel; the reponse to a cat is immediate, as is his response to a truck. Is a dog chasing a truck a prey response? My other dog will chase after cats, but has no interest in small mammals, so these two behavoirs are probably separate.
.
Heather in Miami July 24th, 2009 11:09:23 PM
I have no problem with cats as pets (I've had some in the past) though I prefer dogs, and sometimes I've had both at the same time. I haven't had many cats, but I have noticed that the nicer, friendlier cats were lousy hunters, while the better hunters weren't really "pets". They just stayed around for the food and a warm place to sleep in the winter. Most people I know who "have" cats don't really have "companion animals". They just started feeding a stray, which then stayed, but which is let out at night so the owners don't have to deal with a litter box.
This does not remotely describe the behavior of most of the people I've known who have cats, or my own experience with my own cats. Yes, some have "barn cats" who are really semi-feral and encouraged to stick around the property to keep the rodents down, but most are pets. If they go outside, it's during the day, and and they're inside at night for safety. Some are more affectionate than others, some are more indiscriminately affectionate than others, some are good hunters, and some, like my current older cat, scream for help if they see anything even vaguely prey-like. Affection level and hunting skill seem to be largely orthogonal to each other; you can't predict one by knowing the other.
My younger cat, the Maine Coon, has never been outside except in a carrier, and her breeder innocently believes her cats have never seen mice. And yet this pampered princess kitty is a fine hunter, and not only kills but eats her prey. Which means she was taught by momma, or in her case perhaps poppa (he was the adult in that household most commonly caught teaching the young'ns how to do Cool Stuff that human momma didn't necesarily approve of), that those neat squeaky toys, when they break, have meat inside them. The breeder has never seen a mouse because the cats take care of that. :)
Affection level and hunting efficiency seem to be unrelated to each other, and while choosing only cats with affectionate dispositions, I've always had at least one good hunter in the house.
But people who keep their cats as mostly-outside "barn cats" so that they'll concentrate on hunting, wil naturally have cats who are not overly affectionate towards human beings--but who probably vary just as much in hunting ability and interest.
Lis July 25th, 2009 12:26:38 AM
Our neighbors have a large dog who is very people oriented. He is friendly when introduced, and ecstatic when he meets you again. He even likes the mailman. One day the dog got out the front door, dashed across the street and attacked a cat. The dog owners rushed the cat to the vet but the kitty could not be saved. The dog owners covered all expenses and made sincere apologies to the cat's owner. Their dog was taken by animal control, and given a dangerous dog hearing. The dog was 'acquitted,', and the owners have been vigilant. They took him to obedience training and he never goes out the front door except on a leash and out in the yard unless accompanied. Some owners can be responsible.
The dog lives with two young children. He has always been patient with them (although I think the parents are very responsible in this aspect, making sure the children are gentle and letting the dog have some personal space)
lin July 25th, 2009 12:50:20 AM
As far as telling me that I would want the dog dead were it to be my animals hurt, I can tell you a very fresh, and painful, story.
Because the subjects I usually comment on at this blog are usually relegated to companion animals, I have not spoken much of my chickens. I have (or had, I should say) white wyandottes I had purchased from a show breeder this spring. They were very much anticipated, I saw the parents at a show last year and decided they were the chickens for me. I also have, and have had, nice silkies. I mean *very* nice silkies. Of these birds, five were being conditioned for fall shows (state fair, county fair, bantam show). I arrived home at 4:40 this evening to see a white blur of a dog dodge under the fence.
Then I noticed my coops. They were broken into, feathers were everywhere. Two bodies were immediately evident. I found three more dead chickens in one coop, a dying bird in the grass, and a couple more dying birds under the trees. By dusk, a couple more limped in. I had to put the dying ones out of their misery, and I think I will have to put down a couple more tomorrow if they aren't looking better (necks chewed).
I knew the dog came from houses behind us, so I went to the next rural route over and started inquiring. Turned out one person saw a few dogs running back and forth from the rear of our property to a property down the road. I went to that house.
The father opened the door. The dogs were inside on dog beds. The wife was called as she was the only one home at the time of the incident and the father wanted to ask her if the dogs had been out. They had.
He said they had gotten one fo the dogs from the pound in Jan for the kids. Said she mostly stayed home. Said she wasn't allowed out unless they were home. The kids walked in the room. That's when the father said "I will make sure it won't happen again," and cast a sad but firm look at the dog. He said, "I grew up on a farm- once a chicken killer, always a chicken killer." I balked. I didn't think this was what the dog/dogs deserved. She was a timid thing- they said she was abused. The kids didn't understand, they were trying to get her to lay down and were playing with her.
I told them, "I don't think that's neccessary, I think we can work together to find a solution".
They can't afford to fence their entire property. I lost a lot of valuable stock. All the birds were very tame and my silkies, in particular, were very dear.
I still don't blame the dog. The dog is not a dangerous animal. The humans allowed the dog to wander- it did what dogs do.
I can't remember the exact quote, but it was Ghandi that said something along the lines of "An eye for an eye only ends when the whole world is blind."
Jen July 25th, 2009 03:01:21 AM
Thanks for posting, Jen. I'm sorry to hear about your chooks. =( The only reason our dogs have left our chickens alone is because the chickens are behind electric net fence. It's worked well for us -- they still get to be chickens (even if it's not entirely free-range) but they are safe from the coyotes, neighborhood dogs, etc.
Julie in OH July 25th, 2009 11:01:57 AM
When I lived in northern California, I used to raise chickens (can't legally do it here). I mostly raised Rhodies, with a few Bantams for brooding, and Barreds. Had some silkies for a while, but they were way too noisy too early in the morning. The Rhodies were big, and could pretty much take care of themselves. I would let them out of the coop to roam the yard when I was home, and had trained them to go back to the coop when I had to go or it was getting dark.
Most of the houses had 5'-6' foot fences, so chicken coops were fairly safe from dogs. I finally learned that the trick was to have the roosts and nests high enough off the ground so that most dogs couldn't reach them. As for cats, well, one time I heard a great commotion and caterwauling coming from the coop - the Rhodies had cornered a cat in one of the upper corners. The poor cat was absolutely out of its mind, with the Rhodies jumping up trying to peck him. Had to go get a vinyl tablecloth to throw on the cat so it wouldn't claw me when I pulled it down, and then I had to shoo off the Rhodies as I left the coop. Never saw that cat anywhere near my yard again.
The sadder part of my chicken tale is the Irish Setter that got loose, jumped our fence and figured out how to get into the coop. Bloody. Dog went to the pound (owner wasn't home at the time), owner paid fine, and dog went home. Dog got out again, did the same thing again. Owner paid larger fine, took dog home, dah, dah, dah. After the third time, the dog was put down. Lost my Banties and my Barreds, but many of the Rhodies survived. The dog owner lost his dog. But even after the third time of attacking the chickens, the dog still came with us calmly and obediently as we took him to his house/pound. Never did get to talk to the owner.
But the dog and his owner still had more than one chance. So, I guess I'm with Dr. Khuly on this. The one-time-and-your-dead law seems too extreme.
Heather in Miami July 25th, 2009 10:50:54 PM
Guess I'll back up and tell the story behind my own logic. I was given a kitten when I was 3. It was shortly after my grandfather died and we were living with my grandmother at the time. My grandfather's hunting dog pack still lived in the backyard, fully fenced and having not yet been picked up by the hunter they were being given to. I took the kitten out to play with in the front yard, supervised by my 12 year old uncle (who had some experience with the dogs and was caring for them). The kitten darted away from me and through the chain link into the midst of the dogs. My uncle commanded them back, off, and no and they gave the kitten some distance but they were VERY excited by his presence. The pack clearly saw an opportunity to play chase but one dog headed straight for the kitten, snatched it up by the nape, and shook twice. That was it, dead kitten, not a mark on him. I blamed me and only me. It was years later when I found out that my uncle noted the behavior to the new owner and this dog was cut from the pack and put down. Bird dogs must obey, instantly and without fail, and many owners of packs expect any retrieved animal to be delivered in exactly the condition found; if found alive, dropped alive. This dog didn't obey and found alive and dropped dead. 2 strikes and the hunter wasn't willing to have it in the pack nor chance it's tendencies being passed on. That was a very long time ago. Today, such a dog would hopefully be neutered and "re-homed" but those concepts weren't common then because most people couldn't afford to feed and care for a dog unless it "worked" for its living.
I've been the typical dog owning pushover for years. It wasn't until I had mini strokes and my dogs became aggressive and nearly uncontrollable that I realized how much of a pushover. That old hunter was closer to right than I. We've given dogs too much quarter. My Shiba was a hard head so I had to be one to train her, much as I am with my cats. My Lab was easy to train but pretty laid back, like most Labs. I didn't have high enough expectations for her and the result post-strokes was an uncontrollable 100 pound aggressive dog, deaf to my commands. This old dog, the human one, can learn new tricks - even if they're actually re-learning old tricks like giving no quarter for disobedience, period. Nor do I have a problem with muzzling my dogs, better than risking a bite because, if my dogs broke skin on a child, they'd be euthanized in a heart beat.
I grew up when most of us gave our cats pretty free range of neighborhoods too. The big difference is that we knew that came with risks and we accepted those risks. I remember quite a few roaming dogs too but they knew not to come in other people's yards without invitation and most knew not to attack the neighborhood pet cats too. I don't know how they knew or if they "think" or what but, when dog attacks cat and dog disappears is the rule, dogs seem to get the picture. Ditto for cats around livestock birds. "One free bite" may be too complicated for them.
My cats are getting "some" outdoor privileges at our new house but the area will be fenced and screened to keep others, including my own dogs, out. Any cat owner who allows their cat out without providing escape or protection is taking a greater risk than I would; however, if another animal comes to the cat's property, then the primary fault lies with that trespasser animal's behavior. Cats and dogs know exactly where those property lines are it's only a question of whether or not the people tolerate them crossing those lines. I'm getting a refresher in this at my new house where the neighbor dogs had taken to crossing the yard while the house was vacant. My dogs knew where our property line was within 2 days and the backyard has no fence but they still knew. It's been about 6 weeks and the neighbor dogs have found another route that doesn't include walking across our yard. It's fascinating to watch the dogs walk down the easement (there's no sidewalks)along the road. How do they know that's a public easement??? But they do.
Heather, maybe you can afford to lose your animals to a repeat offender and are willing to do so; many can't. The Setter in your case merely proves that old adage about "once a chicken killer,..."
Shady: Like most of the country, you don't know all the details of the Joe Horn case, including that there was an officer on site who did NOTHING but sit and watch the whole thing and probably would have done nothing other than let these thieves do their thing and leave. The Castle law in Texas was passed because everyone's so very tired of losing hard earned property while all the thieves get second, third, 50 chances. Don't want us to shoot thieves? Then make the penalty sufficient that they don't do it twice!
PJBoosinger July 25th, 2009 11:07:09 PM
Guess I'll back up and tell the story behind my own logic. I was given a kitten when I was 3. It was shortly after my grandfather died and we were living with my grandmother at the time. My grandfather's hunting dog pack still lived in the backyard, fully fenced and having not yet been picked up by the hunter they were being given to. I took the kitten out to play with in the front yard, supervised by my 12 year old uncle (who had some experience with the dogs and was caring for them). The kitten darted away from me and through the chain link into the midst of the dogs. My uncle commanded them back, off, and no and they gave the kitten some distance but they were VERY excited by his presence. The pack clearly saw an opportunity to play chase but one dog headed straight for the kitten, snatched it up by the nape, and shook twice. That was it, dead kitten, not a mark on him. I blamed me and only me. It was years later when I found out that my uncle noted the behavior to the new owner and this dog was cut from the pack and put down. Bird dogs must obey, instantly and without fail, and many owners of packs expect any retrieved animal to be delivered in exactly the condition found; if found alive, dropped alive. This dog didn't obey and found alive and dropped dead. 2 strikes and the hunter wasn't willing to have it in the pack nor chance it's tendencies being passed on. That was a very long time ago. Today, such a dog would hopefully be neutered and "re-homed" but those concepts weren't common then because most people couldn't afford to feed and care for a dog unless it "worked" for its living.
Two things stand out here. One is the one I've bolded--you say "two strikes," but you've only told us about one.
The other is that when you were three and your uncle was twelve, you did something that adult judgment would have recognized as very very stupid--putting a prey-like object in front of one dog is one thing; putting a prey-like object in front of a pack of dogs. The risks aren't additive; they multiply. That the dogs all should have been able to cope with this behavior challenge is beside the point; they should not have been presented with it in the form of a young animal you really cared about keeping alive, and your uncle, at least, was old enough to know better. I trust he was grounded for at least a week. Or beaten to a bloody pulp, if you prefer, since you think modern approaches are inappropriately gentle.
I've been the typical dog owning pushover for years. It wasn't until I had mini strokes and my dogs became aggressive and nearly uncontrollable that I realized how much of a pushover. That old hunter was closer to right than I. We've given dogs too much quarter. My Shiba was a hard head so I had to be one to train her, much as I am with my cats. My Lab was easy to train but pretty laid back, like most Labs. I didn't have high enough expectations for her and the result post-strokes was an uncontrollable 100 pound aggressive dog, deaf to my commands.
You had a traumatic experience as a toddler. Many years later, one hard-headed dog combined with an illness that impaired you convinced you that the only acceptable approach to "training" dogs is to be harsh--and to have a one-strike-and-you're-dead for normal prey behavior displayed in circumstances where humans find it inappropriate.
Do you have similar one-strike-and-you're-dead policy for cats who kill songbirds?
This old dog, the human one, can learn new tricks - even if they're actually re-learning old tricks like giving no quarter for disobedience, period. Nor do I have a problem with muzzling my dogs, better than risking a bite because, if my dogs broke skin on a child, they'd be euthanized in a heart beat.
Uh-uh. No pulling that trick. There's not one of us here who would hesitate to muzzle our dogs if it appeared necessary for safety.
Or are you telling us that your dogs live in basket muzzles, "just in case" ?
Lis July 26th, 2009 08:02:58 AM
If a neighbor dog came onto my property and killed one of my animals I would bide my time and poison their dog. it would not be a difficult thing to do.
Davy Crockett July 26th, 2009 11:42:35 AM
And when you accidentally also poisoned another neighbor's innocent dog or cat, would it be okay for the wronged neighbors to lie in wait and inflict an agonizing death to you, too? Since, after all, unlike the dog, you know better?
Lis July 26th, 2009 12:03:12 PM
At the risk of sounding like a cat-hater, I have to say, after reading these responses, I agree with those who feel Slugger's owner could have done more to protect the cat. When you allow your pet (cat, dog, or dodo bird) to roam freely, you run the risk of that animal being mauled or killed. I lived in a moderately rural area in KY for a few years and had to adjust to my neighbors habits of allowing their dogs and cats to run wild. So, I understand that for some people, it's perfectly acceptable to allow your cat to roam freely. I just don't agree. I have two cats, and they stay indoors. The closest they've come to outdoors was when we had an enclosed porch at our home in KY.
On the other hand, I get very angry when I see owners letting their dogs run off the leash in local parks & on local walking trails. I have a giant, tame dog, but I am constantly vigilant when I walk her lest something go awry. When I see owners with their dogs running amok in the parks, I seethe and walk the other way. Let's be honest - if their medium sized dogs attacked & my giant dog did damage while defending herself, who do you think is going to get in trouble? I'm not willing to take that chance.
And, I am convinced that were Mercedes a more cuddly breed, she would be a more sympathetic party in this story.
When I was young, my mom's uncle had a chihuahua that he adored. The dog had no teeth, was quite old, and would try to bite you out of fear (or at least, would try to bite me, a young child trying to poke at her). One day, he was visiting a family member and had his beloved dog in the back yard. A neighbor's large dog accidentally got out of its yard and came into my relative's, where he found the chihuahua. The dog had not exhibited aggression before, but for some reason, it treated that chihuahua as a chew toy. It took three different vets to convince my uncle that his dog was dead. But, as sad as he was, I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about the neighbor's dog being aggressive or crying out for retribution. What I do remember is that everyone was treating it as a horrible accident. The attacker was not a pit-mix, though. While I can't remember precisely what type of dog it was, I do remember that it was something cuddly.
Maybe there's more to the story of Mercedes that supports the claim that this particular dog is prone to aggression. Without that information, I'm not convinced that a one-strike rule is fair.
Molly July 27th, 2009 11:23:53 PM
Molly, my experience has been that whenever there is trouble between a large dog and a small dog, the small dog is blamed because "everybody knows" that it's the little dogs that are really mean and aggressive, and so the little dog must have started it. A few weeks ago, I took my small dog to a local nature reservation where on-leash dogs are allowed. We walked to one of the popular vantage points, and while we were there, a family arrived with their three dogs--an on-leash Lab, an on-leash smaller, houndy-type dog, and an OFF-leash Golden.
My dog didn't have the greatest experiences during her first year, and she finds big dogs quite intimidating. She saw the Golden coming towards her and did an immediate down, making herself as small and unobtrusive as possible.
And the Golden ignored this, and bounded right up to her and loomed over her, all big doggy grin and wiggly butt, scaring my dog half to death. She leaped to her feet and started barking--just barking, not lunging or snarling--at him, and he backed off barely a step or two, all confused. His people finally came and got him--and for the rest of the time we were there, I was listening to "friendly" jokes about my "Cujo" and "Tasmanian devil dog."
The friendly but brain-dead owners of the friendly but brain-dead Golden were utterly unable to grasp the fact that A) their dog had been rude, and B) all three of their dogs should have been on leash, not just two of them.
Neither I nor my dog had done anything wrong.
Just last week, in Boston, we had a case more serious than doggy rudeness. A 60-year-old woman was walking her minpin on-leash in her own neighborhood, when a German shepherd, off-leash, charged and picked up the minpin. She reached down and snatched her dog away, and the GSD leaped at her, to get the "toy" back. She was bitten, quite seriously, in the face, the abdomen, and the leg.
The GSD it turns out, is a police dog, who lives with his handler in that same neighborhood. The house they were walking by is the officer's house. There are two versions of what happened--either the dog was in the fenced yard and somehow got out, or the officer had just arrived home, and opened the cruiser door to let the GSD run up the steps to the front door.
Either way, the GSD was off leash, and it shouldn't have been. The minpin was on-leash, under the control of its owner, walking peacably in their own neighborhood.
Nevertheless, there have been many eager to claim that the minpin must've mouthed off to the GSD. Because, y'know, little dogs, you know what they're like.... The fact that this is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and the fact that the GSD should have been under the control of its handler and not permitted to attack even if the scary minpin barked at it, is beside the point. The little dog must have been at fault.
On top of that, the very first police dept. statement, while actually being clear about which dog attacked the other, expressiing sorrow for the woman's injuries, described it as "a dog attacking another dog, and another woman got in the way..."
And that theme has been pounded heavily in comments in various places--that the woman would not have been hurt if only she had "known enough" not to protect her little dog. If only she had undertood that she should have just let the big dog kill her dog--after all, it's only a little dog, right? Not one that matters?
The real point is that any off-leash dog is a potential problem to people who keep their own dogs leashed and under control. It doesn't matter whether the off-leash dog or the on-leash dog is the one with an aggression problem; as long as the owner has the dog on-leash and under control, any problems that occur are the fault of the owner whose dog was off-leash.
As for Slugger and Mercedes--I think I've made it clear that I don't blame Mercedes, and I'm totally against this "one strike and you're dead" policy. And if I'd had the chance to before it happened, I'd have strongly advised Slugger's owners to keep him inside because of all the many ways in which it's safer. But saying all that, it's still true that Slugger was on his own porch, and should have been safe there, and it's not Slugger's owners who have to apologize to Mercedes' owners. It was Mercedes, not Slugger, who was someplace she shouldn't have been.
Lis July 28th, 2009 09:01:37 AM
A few days ago, our 6 month old kitten was torn to pieces by a pack of fighting dogs......She was even in a large sturdy kennel for the night right outside our back door. They completely ruined the kennel & drug it at least 50 feet....this is a kennel that is awkward for me to carry....big enough for litter box, toys, etc, and managed to get our poor kitten out & rip her apart beyond recognition. I think that those dogs SHOULD be killed for sure! The next victim could be me.....or a child! These dogs should not be allowed to roam around. If a human did this they would pay for the crime. I think it is a disgrace that people train dogs to do this. I would never wish for anyone to find a loved pet in the condition that my husband found ours. We take care of our pets resposibly, why should we have to pay for others who don't by losing our loved pets? It is completely ludacrice to me. I will gladly shoot a threatening dog from here on out.....No doubt. I'm not going to risk my well being or anyones close to me to save the life of some starved vicious mut.
Upset August 4th, 2009 01:18:57 PM
Upset, why did you leave a kitten outside -- sturdy kennel or not -- overnight?
Dogs notwithstanding, there may be foxes, coyotes, and other predators that might also have figured out how to "beat" that kennel.
How much of a "loved" pet was she if you were leaving her outside in a kennel that can be picked up and carried away?
I don't consider that "responsible," sorry to say.
Stefani August 10th, 2009 03:20:26 PM
We live in a very small town & have a very large, private yard. Not that I should have to explain myself to you. She was an outdoor kitty & ALWAYS stayed right by our back door when she was out during the day. We only put her up @ night. At six months old, She was almost to full size & very healthy & very happy & playful. She had just been fixed the week before she died. You must not live in a small town, Stefani. Our last outdoor cat lived to the ripe old age of 12 & died of natural causes. This was no fox in the middle of town....The deputy (which took pictures of our kitty and the box for evidence) told us it was most likely dogs that got loose from owners training them to fight. They are already trying to catch these people. THAT is despicable & COMPLETELY inhumane & as you say, not responsible, as well as very dangerous. It is abuse to the dogs. I am very much an animal lover. I grew up on a farm! I don't think that dogs should be running around that could hurt/kill me, anyone else, or other pets! Our neighbor has a 6 month old baby for crying out loud! What if they were walking her in a stroller & these vicious dogs got after them????? We ALWAYS take every precaution with our pets & keep them safe, up to date with shots, etc. whether you think so or not..... Haven't seen any dogs since her attack, so that is a good sign....perhaps police have put that to an end. I sure hope so. Our little town is also getting stricter on the leash law now & that is also a plus.
upset August 11th, 2009 04:48:23 PM
Upset, Stefani and I don't seem to agree on a lot of things but I do agree with her here. My apologies for your loss. But this is what I think. Cats being kept as pets should be indoor animals. There are no reasons that justify leaving it outside, in a large sturdy kennel or not. Its an argument I have constantly with my mom, who also lives in a small town (and yes, she has had foxes and coyote chase her home on her evening walks with her large dog). While you may not have wildlife of that sort, there are all sorts of risks. Above and beyond that, it seems that you are making a lot of assumptions in your story. That it was pack of dogs that were probably being trained to fight that were being allowed to roam. I'm not saying that their behaviour was justified but I don't think that they deserve to be put to death because of this one incident. If the investigation shows that they are indeed being kept by someone who is training them to be fight dogs or letting them roam freely there are consequences that the human should face. The dogs should be assessed by a behaviourist and than it should be determined weather they are rehabitable. As for it (them?) attacking your cat, it has been discussed in length already her. Dogs have prey drives. That does not necessarily make them agressive towards people.
Shady August 11th, 2009 08:54:10 PM
Please understand that I am not a dog hater.....My parents raise Border Collies, Bird Dogs, and Great Peranese. I most definitely love dogs & would hate for anything to happen to any of them! We found out that a lady & her small dog were attacked, and her dog was killed not long before our cat was killed. Right after our cat was killed the same lady was attacked again. This must be why the law in our town is so interested in this. The lady & her husband live less than a mile from our home & from what we have heard a man accross the street has several dogs that are being trained to fight. Luckily, She didn't get hurt too badly. Her neighbor heard the chaos & came out to intervene. These particular dogs need to be taken away from the owner who is obviously not taking proper care of them.....They should,as you said be determined as to whether they are rehabitable. Lots of people have outdoor cats in our neighborhood & your opinion is respectable, completely. Nothing of this nature has ever happened before & we would NEVER have put our little kitty in what we thought was a dangerous position. We thought we were doing the right thing by sheltering her & now we feel horrible because of what happened.
Upset August 12th, 2009 12:56:52 PM
Any dog that kills a cat should always automatically be euthanized. It is a total danger to everyone, people & other animals. Period.
Dana September 1st, 2009 07:24:56 PM
Dana,
Thank you for not making me feel cruel!!! I love dogs, but if their owners don't take care of them, they are going to go into animal mode to survive. Thats not cool. Properly taken care of pets will not be vicious.
Upset September 8th, 2009 01:20:42 PM
My cat was on my front porch when two dogs ran up on the porch and attacked her. They tore her apart. My cat stays inside but likes to go out and sleep on the porch sometimes. She was just laying there asleep when the dogs attacked her. I chased the dogs off and found out who they belonged to. I reported the incident to the police and they informed me that these dogs had been killing cats all over town and were glad to know who they belonged to. They said they would take care of the situation. I also own a dog and he got out of the fence and came across our neighbors cat and he just barked and ran when the cat hissed at him. We fixed the place where he got out and he has always been a wonderful dog. We live in a small town and a lot of people own cats that they let out from time to time. We have never had a problem with any dogs attacking our cats or other dogs. I can't believe a dog or dogs could tear a cat apart for no reason. Would they ever attack a small child? I am waiting to see what the police do. I believe the owner should be responsible since these dogs have been getting out and terrorizing the cats around town. It scares me that if these dogs have been on nightly kills, that they are dangerous!!
Tricia September 9th, 2009 11:09:07 AM
Tricia,
My thoughts exactly. Like you, We live in a small town & most everybody has a dog or cat! When our kitten was killed we reported it as well & the police took pictures of everything. We've always had an inside cat and an outside cat as well.....Our last outside cat lived to be 12 years old & died of natural causes. As you said, What if the next victim of these dogs is someones child? Or me! I am 5'1 & petite......If these dogs are that vicious, I couldn't get away without protection myself! I find myself scoping out our street & yard everytime I am outside now & that is a shame. I can't even get veggies out of our garden without wandering if I should take a stick or something with me "just in case"!
Upset September 17th, 2009 10:07:06 AM
I'm going through a dog-law case right now. In April, My APBT and I moved in with a girlfriend of mine and her pit bull, weezy. They got out one night and, on a lawyers property, chased and killed a cat.. the lawyers cat. He watched the entire episode go down. I felt awful. My dog, Valentine, has grown up with cats since he was a pup and I cannot believe he would participate in such an act. I moved out shortly after that, and Valentine went back to his usual lovey self. Without weezy's influence valentine was no longer distracted. I have since then had him around cats, dogs of different breeds, even other pit bulls and he is perfectly unaffected. He even gave the kitty kisses (nice ones)!! Not once since he's been born, through all the changes and moves we have overcome, has he ever hurt a human of any kind. He loves children and is very well-behaved around them. Valentine is not dangerous.
The case was pushed off until last wednesday, where I couldn't even contain my emotions enough to fight, so I took a plea bargain. Little did I know the ramifications of that. They sent me the guidelines of harboring a dangerous dog, and I quickly learned that it was a death sentence. Even if I could afford the fines and all the fees, there is no insurance companies in my area that insure pit bulls.
So I've decided it's time to fight. I finally found an attorney willing to fight for Valentine. This site and all it's posts have really given me some great ideas and have provided me with the confidence to stand up for what I believe... which is that my dog is not dangerous, and that he deserves his chance to live. Thank you so much for your support!!! If anyone has any information or guidance to provide me with on this, please feel free to contact me!! dreamer0420@hotmail.com
<3 VALENTINE FOREVER <3
alexandra September 30th, 2009 08:02:02 AM
Alexandra,
I can only imagine how hard the situation is for you! It sounds to me like you are a great pet owner. What happened is very unfortunate. Obviously, Valentine isn't usually an aggressive or dangerous dog.....You give him the kind of home he deserves and needs. Its too bad that all of the owners of dogs that have attacked before aren't like you. Of course most of those owners are practically nonexistant & that's how their dogs came to be so aggressive in the first place! Growing up with dogs myself (border collies, bird dogs, and great peranese), I don't think it's fair for you to have to put your dog down because of one, very unusual incident. In our situation, it was found that our kitten was killed by dogs that were being trained to fight which is just crazy in my opinion! The dogs, yes more than one, had already attacked a lady walking her little miniature dog & actually killed the dog! These dogs were actually on the loose! When the lady's husband confronted the owner of the dogs....The owner was defensive & made it into a race situation when it had absolutely nothing to do with race! It is most definitely not racist to confront the owner of a vicious dog when the dog has just attacked your spouse & killed your pet right in broad daylight in your front yard!!!!! Our kittens death followed that incident, and our neighbors Lab went missing. Since then, the police have taken control of the situation. My guess is they took the dogs away from the man.....I'm not really sure what they did with the dogs, but I do know that the owner went to jail for destruction of private property (The dogs tore up a $100 kennell, scratched my convertible, and ruined our flower garden). Just glad they can't cause anymore trouble or hurt in our neighborhood. For a while I was nervous to go outside by myself at night....I didn't want to be attacked. We haven't had any more dogs in our yard since then. In the 6 years we have lived in our house, we have never seen a situation like this. Our neighborhood is so quiet and peaceful. It's never bothered me for the neighbors dog to come over & they have cats as well, so that wasn't a problem in the least! I do wish the best for you and Valentine. They should look more closely at the background of dogs involved in this sort of matter. In your case, I do think they would change there decision to your favor.
Upset September 30th, 2009 09:02:54 AM
Thanks for this article Docter. Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa | Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa | Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa
Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa November 8th, 2009 12:10:44 PM
http://www.uggcase.com/UGG-Hammond-Slipper/
http://www.tiffanyjewelrybuy.com/tiffany-cuff-c-14.html
UGG Hammond Slipper on sale November 8th, 2009 01:23:51 PM
cheap UGG Handbags
cheap UGG Handbags November 9th, 2009 02:01:02 PM
<a href="Piaget'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Piaget/">Piaget replica</a><a href="Rado'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Rado/">Rado replica</a><a href="Tag'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Tag-Heuer/">Tag Heuer replica</a><a href="Tudor'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Tudor/">Tudor replica</a><a href="U-boat'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/U-boat/">U-boat replica</a><a href="Vacheron'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Vacheron-Constantin/">Vacheron Constantin replica</a><a href="Rolex'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Rolex/">Rolex replica</a><a href="Rolex'>http://www.cartierwatches.us/Rolex/Air%20King/">Rolex Datejust II replica</a>
dsfese November 11th, 2009 08:25:26 AM
However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.
tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 09:42:35 PM
Ferrari watches
Ferrari watches November 13th, 2009 09:48:00 AM
UGG Classic Cardy
Discount Uggs Boots On Sale
Ugg Classic Tall Boots
Ugg Boots Cheap
Ugg New Styles
ugg boots on lale November 13th, 2009 10:55:08 AM
Rolex Day-Date II watch for sale
replica watches
A.Lange & Sohne watch for sale
Audemars Piguet watch for sale
Bell & Ross watch for sale
Breguet watch for sale
Audemars Piguet watch for sale November 13th, 2009 11:09:20 PM
chopard replica
Concord replica November 17th, 2009 08:04:02 AM
Tudor watches
U-boat watches
Rolex watches
Rolex Air-King watches
Rolex Datejust II watches
Tag Heuer watches November 18th, 2009 06:16:24 AM
replica Rolex
replica Rolex Datejust II
replica Rolex Datejust
replica Rolex Submariner
replica Yachtmaster
replica Rolex November 18th, 2009 09:52:27 AM
Add Commment